Earlfield Lodge

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. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Improvements had been made since our last assessment to ensure care plans were person centred and contained detailed information about people’s needs and preferences. These included information about individual religion, sexuality, dietary needs and methods of communication. A health and social care professional said, “Staff are helpful and know people well.”

The provider 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 received training in best practice for a variety of areas. For example, managing skin integrity and moving and handling.

People were complimentary about the food provided with several people saying, “The food is very good.” A person said, “We have a choice and that they will do you something else if you don’t like what’s on offer.” A relative told us, “The food is amazing. [Name of person] went from hardly eating, to eating fish and chips and pudding. The quality of the food was great.” Drinks and fruit were readily available for people and people told us hot drinks were provided. We observed positive mealtime experiences for people. Staff joined in mealtimes to create a social and relaxed atmosphere.

People’s preferences around their nutrition and hydration were documented in their care plan. For example, what food, they enjoyed. A person said, “They know my likes and dislikes. People told us suggestions around food choices and mealtimes given at their resident’s meetings had been listened to and changes implemented.
 

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services. Systems shared information within the staff team. For example, through verbal and written handovers and communication records. Information was shared with others involved in people’s care when appropriate. For example, social workers or health professionals. A health professional said, “We have always found the team to be approachable, organised, and genuinely focused on the well-being of their residents.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. Care plans gave information about people’s health conditions. The service had positive relationships with the GP surgery, pharmacy and other health professionals. Observations were escalated and monitored. A health professional said, “The home escalates things when appropriate and are clear about any concerns.”

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. Care plans showed people’s life histories and preferences. Staff regularly reviewed people’s care and support to ensure it met people’s needs and preferences. People were consulted about their care and supported to live their life as they wished. A health professional said, “Communication with the staff is clear and timely, and they are always quick to get in touch if there are any queries or changes needed.”

People told us they enjoyed living at the service and were happy with the support provided. A person said, “I love it here.” Another person told us improvements in the home had changed how they felt about living there. They said, “It is the first time in a long time I’m feeling settled.” Another person said, “It feels like home.”

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. However, the registered manager acknowledged improvements were required to some mental capacity assessments to ensure they were all decision specific. Mental capacity assessments and associated best interest decisions were conducted when appropriate. We reviewed some positive examples of capacity assessment where full details had been recorded to demonstrate how the service had approached and engaged with the person. People’s family and relevant others had been involved in best interest decisions. However, this was not always fully detailed. The service was reviewing mental capacity documentation to ensure the most effective format was used. Fuller person-centred information was held in people’s care plans. This supported decisions in people’s best interests as people’s wishes and preferences were described.

Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff demonstrated, and we observed, they gained people’s consent before any care interventions. People’s choices were respected. A person said, “They have never made me go to bed at any particular time, we can wander about and we have a choice about what to eat.”