Compton House Christian Nursing 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.

People's needs were assessed when they first moved into the home, and they were involved in the planning of their care. Regular reviews ensured that the guidance provided to staff was current and met people's assessed needs and preferences.

Each person had a full and completed initial assessment in place, which people confirmed that they, and their relatives, were involved in. Each assessment included a review of their capacity and ability to communicate their needs and wishes. Peoples’ needs, and choices, were assessed and took account of preferences for their support. Protected characteristics and diverse needs under the Equality Act formed part of this process. For example, people’s religious needs and preferences were captured.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. People received care, treatment and support that was evidence-based and in line with good practice standards. Each person had a full and complete initial assessment in place, an assessment that they confirmed involvement in.

Evidence based tools were used to assess people's needs and identify if people were at risk. For example, guidance such as the Malnutrition universal screening tool (MUST) was used to help identify those at risk of malnutrition or those above health weight range. Other evidence-based tools were used to assess risks of developing pressure sores and falling.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. When people received care from a range of different staff, teams or services, it was co-ordinated effectively.

Staff had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan and deliver people’s care, treatment and support. Professionals and partners in care said that the management and staff were effective in information sharing and partnership working. Appropriate and timely referrals were made when needed.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan and deliver people’s care, treatment and support. People’s medical and health requirements were supported by staff. Detailed assessments, support plans, training and guidance for staff, as well as partnership working with external partners all contributed to promoting the health of people at the service

The service focused on identifying risks to people’s health and wellbeing early and on how to support people to prevent deterioration. For example, nursing staff used the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) to help identify and respond to clinical deterioration in residents, for example if anyone had fallen.NEWS is a standardised system for recording and assessing people’s baseline observations to promote safe and effective clinical care.

People were involved in regularly monitoring their health, including health assessments and checks where appropriate and necessary with health and care Professionals. One person said, “My legs have blistered and swelled and need a bit of care. My legs are well taken care of by the nurses.”

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent.

People experienced positive outcomes to the care they received. The monitoring of people’s care and health needs used evidence-based guidance and tools to monitor outcomes effectively such as falls, wound care, activities engagement etc. The provider was proactive with communication with, and timely referrals to, external professionals and stakeholders to ensure that outcomes remained positive for the people they supported.

Outcomes of people’s health and well-being were monitored by staff. Care plans, risk assessments were consistently reviewed and updated to reflect people’s changing needs and to ensure that safe and effective support continued.

The provider did not always ensure that people’s capacity was assessed appropriately and safely, in line with relevant guidance and legislation. The provider did not undertake specific mental capacity assessments to determine people’s capacity to make specific decisions about their care. Leaders informed us that a GP would conduct a general capacity assessment but that decision specific assessments were not conducted by staff. The deputy manager said, “We can do that here and I plan to do those here. It’s a work in progress.”

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. People were protected when issues around capacity had been identified. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications were completed and in people’s best interests with minimal restrictions. Leadership held a tracker to ensure DoLS authorisations were in date and remained relevant.

Staff provided care within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People’s views and wishes were taken into account when their care was planned and our conversations with them confirmed this. We observed people were consistently asked for consent from staff and were provided with choices in relation to where they spent their time and what they wanted to do.