White Hart House

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment, and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. This is the first inspection for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, well-being, and communication needs with them. Staff understood people’s individual needs and made sure assessments were up to date and recorded. Staff told us people’s views were sought by using their preferred communication methods across various platforms including, during daily support and in meetings with their keyworker, the manager, and the whole household. We saw evidence of people’s views being recorded and included in care plans.

The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. Staff monitored people’s weight and used nationally recognised tools appropriately to assess and monitor people’s needs. For example, the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) was used to identify people at risk of malnutrition. Staff ensured people had enough to eat and drink and where there was a concern in this area staff had completed a referral to the relevant health professional requesting additional support.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. For example, staff worked with speech and language therapists, physio therapists, Neurology consultants and district nurses. The manager told us, people would only need to tell their story once as they would share their assessment of needs if a person was to move between different services. The service was supporting people in line with the ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ principles.

The service supported people to manage their health and well-being to maximise their independence, choice, and control. The manager told us, “We use RESTORE2 mini. Staff have had training on this by the Integrated Care Board (ICB). Staff are able to make those checks. Staff also follow support plans which detail signs to look out for when a person becomes unwell.” The service strived to support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. For example, when the manager realised one person who benefited from spending time in their walker to help prevent chest infections had not always had the opportunity; they made arrangements to ensure the person could use their walker daily at a time which best suited them.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they mostly met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. Staff worked collaboratively to plan and deliver people’s care, reduce risks, and achieve best outcomes for people. A relative told us, “Staff always monitor my relative, if they are ill, staff will let me know. They will also have a discussion with me around winter flu and covid vaccinations.”

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected their rights when delivering care and treatment. Where necessary, mental capacity assessments were completed in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and best Interest (BI) meetings were held, following the MCA. Records were not always sufficiently detailed to show the level of involvement people, and their representatives had in these assessments and decision making meetings. Following our assessment the provider told us they would be updating these assessments and would ensure people’s and representatives views would be reflected in future assessments.