Bayith Rest Home

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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.

Although records such as assessments and some care plans required more detail, people’s needs were assessed and regularly reviewed to ensure they received effective support. Staff were aware of people’s preferences and respected these. One relative told us “They [staff] are aware of [Person’s] needs and cater towards them.” People and relatives were positive about the care people received.

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.

Best practice guidance was used to ensure consistency. For example, nationally recognised tools such as the multi universal screening tool (MUST), were used to assess people's nutritional risk. Staff sought the expertise of specialist professionals when appropriate, and their guidance was followed.

People spoke positively about the care they received, including with eating and drinking. People and relatives told us people had plenty of food and drink, and their nutritional needs were met. For example, 1 person said, “The food is good. Sometimes we get too much, it’s excellent.” We observed people received meals in line with their assessed needs and people enjoyed them. Staff knew what dietary support people needed. The manager had plans to increase the variety of meals for a person who needed a special diet.

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.

Staff told us they worked well together as a team. For example, 1 staff member said, “I think we get on really well, we’re all there for each other and support each other.” Relevant information about peoples’ needs and the running of the service was shared in handovers and meetings, and staff told us communication was good. Staff told us they had good working relationships with partners, and records demonstrated how they worked together to benefit people.

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.

People were supported to access services to maintain and improve their health. People and relatives told us people received healthcare support when they needed it. For example, a relative said, “They [staff] have got the GP involved regularly and the district nurse comes in twice a week currently to manage [health condition]. A health care professional confirmed staff knew how to respond to changes in people’s health and followed their guidance effectively.
 

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure outcomes were positive and

consistent, or met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Processes needed improvements to ensure people's care and treatment was monitored effectively. For example, records were in place to monitor areas such as food and fluid intake and repositioning. These records did not always evidence people had enough to drink or were supported in line with their care plan. This increased the risk that people’s needs would not be met. Despite this, people, staff and professionals external to the service were positive about the outcomes people experienced at Bayith Rest Home. For example, 1 person told us how they were more independent than when they arrived in the home, and a health professional told us how proactive the manager was when the manager identified a decline in a person’s health. Weekly GP visits to the home evidenced appropriate reviews and referrals for people who needed them, such as those experiencing weight loss.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff understood the importance of respecting people’s decisions and gaining consent from them. For example, 1 staff member said, “I make sure they [people] know they always have an option.” One person told us, “I can do what I like when I like.” and a relative said, “Staff respect her wishes in what [person] asks for.” We observed staff giving people choices and respecting these. Where there was any doubt about people’s capacity to make decisions, mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were mostly carried out. The manager acted following our inspection to ensure records of consent were completed for 1 person. Staff completed training in the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and were aware of how to use the principles of the MCA in their role. Where people needed to be deprived of their liberty for their safety, the appropriate authorisations were met. Information about who had a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS) was readily available for staff.