Larchwood Nursing and Residential 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 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.

The provider assessed people’s support needs as part of the preadmission process to ensure they could be met by the service. People had care plans setting out care and the support they required, which was reviewed regularly.

People told us that the staff knew them well. A person told us, “I know what is written about me (care plan) and I know it’s checked and updated regularly.”

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. The provider used recognised tools to help assess people’s needs and make changes if necessary. These included the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) which was used to assess people’s risk of malnutrition. Staff were kept up to date with people’s changing needs. One staff member told us, “We are told about residents needs changing, like dietary needs, from the nurse.”

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. We saw evidence that people were supported to access a variety of healthcare services to meet their needs. During our assessment we observed the registered manager and staff interacting positively with visiting professionals.

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 said that they were supported by staff. A person told us, “I am allowed to come and go as I please. I have mental capacity, so I understand the risks I’m taking.”

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive andconsistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. For example, we found some people who required repositioning every 2 hours to reduce the risk of skin damage, were not being repositioned for longer periods than 2 hours. This put people at risk of damage to their skin. We found no harm had come to people. When we informed the registered manager, they were proactive in reviewing all people at risk and ensured that regular oversight was made.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Where a person did not have capacity to make their own decision, or had fluctuating capacity, the provider had completed mental capacity assessments. This meant the service had acted in line with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) code of practice. Staff had received training in MCA and understood what consent meant. We observed staff seeking consent before supporting people’s needs.