Victoria Court Private 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.

This is the first assessment for this service under a new provider. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (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. Care plans and risk assessments contained all the information staff needed to support people. Before people came to the service a full assessment of their needs was completed to help formulate the basis of their care plan. The registered manager told us, staff spent time getting to know people and talking to them and their relatives to then help add more information into care plans as they got to know people better. Care plans and risk assessments were regularly updated to ensure they contained the most relevant information.

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 registered manager had nutritional and hydration assessments in place, where required people were placed on fluid watch to monitor their hydration levels. People’s weights were monitored and actions taken to involve other healthcare professionals when needed.

Referrals were made to speech and language therapists where people had swallowing problems and specialist diets and fluid thickeners were adhered to when prescribed.

The cook told us that staff shared information on people’s dietary needs so that they could tailor meals to their needs.

The registered manager was very keen for people to have choice over meals and to be offered a varied menu to support their mealtime experience. The registered manager completed mealtime experience audits and discussed menu options with people to get their feedback.

We saw people were supported throughout the day with food, drinks and snacks. People told us they could have drinks whenever they wanted and did not have to wait for set times. We observed a mealtime experience and saw people used this as a social occasion sitting together and enjoying each other’s company. People we spoke with were complimentary of the food and said they had enough to eat and drink.

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 worked well with people and other healthcare professionals to ensure people’s care needs were met consistently. A healthcare professional told us, “Communication is very good with the service.”

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 such as optician, foot care, palliative care team, district nurses and GPs. The GP service visited weekly to provide reviews and address any health issues for people. Where people had specialist hospital appointments, they were supported to attend these. People told us they had access to healthcare when they needed it.

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 registered manager had monitoring systems in place to monitor people’s health, such as, fluid watch, weight monitoring, infection monitoring and skin integrity monitoring tools. Tools in place gave feedback on people’s health and provided a system to flag issues early. Care plans were audited and reviewed to ensure information was accurate.

The registered manager engaged with people during regular meetings and sent out surveys. Any actions from these were shared with people. For example, feedback given in a survey was people wanted to be kept informed of refurbishment plans. The provider shared their renovation plan with dates for people and relatives and to see.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible.

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.

In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We saw that DoLS application had been made appropriately.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Staff understood the need to gain consent from people to support them with their care needs and in making decisions.

We found staff practice reflected the principles of the MCA. People were encouraged to make their own decisions, while still minimising risk. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act.

Where people had a DoLS in place any conditions in place were adhered to and monitored by the registered manager. Where people needed independent support with making decisions an advocate was appointed to act on their behalf.