Hayes Court

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 67 (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 was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. People’s needs were assessed before admission and on arrival to the service. Managers described a structured pre‑admission process involving review of referrals, discussion with families, and liaison with hospital staff and GPs. Clinical leads reviewed referrals to identify risks and specific needs, and assessments informed care planning.

People and relatives told us staff knew them well and understood their needs. One person said, “They all know me and my limitations.”

The provider did not always make sure people’s care was effective by providing care based on best practice and guidance. Staff worked with community healthcare professionals and followed the advice and guidance provided. However, we found the provider was not always adhering to best practice guidance to ensure people received evidence-based care. For example, the environment had not been reviewed in line with guidance to provide a dementia friendly environment. There was patterned carpet and patterned wallpaper, with a lack of distinction between different areas of the home and a lack of signage impacting on how people experienced and navigated the environment.

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 described strong teamwork and clear communication across care, nursing, management and ancillary teams. Regular handovers took place three times a day, and staff escalated concerns promptly to nurses or managers. Clinical leads maintained close links with GPs, pharmacists and community services.

Staff told us teamwork was positive and supportive. One nurse said, “The teamwork is very good at the moment… Everyone comes to me and raises any concerns.” Care staff said, “If we have any concerns about a person’s health then we report to the nurse and they will come and check straight away.”

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 healthcare services when needed, including GP reviews, hospital appointments and specialist input. Staff supported people to regain strength after hospital admission and improved hydration and nutrition following admission.

Activities and social engagement supported emotional wellbeing. Staff encouraged participation in activities, reminiscence and maintaining interests, and families were involved where possible. People and relatives reported positive health outcomes. One relative said, “[My family member] has become more alert and slightly more active since they have been here.”

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.

The provider monitored outcomes for people and supported people to gain strength and improve their independence. This included supporting people who had experienced a stroke to rebuild their strength and improve their mobility.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

Paper care records included initial consent documents and Mental Capacity Act assessments linked to deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS). However, electronic care records often lacked clear information about capacity, consent, best‑interest decisions and where Lasting Power of Attorneys (LPAs) were in place. For several people, there was no recorded capacity assessment or consent information within electronic care plans. This made it difficult to establish, from records alone, how decisions were made and whether legal frameworks were consistently applied. The manager informed us they would ensure their care records were updated to ensure consistent recording.