Inglewood 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 good. At this assessment this key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 54 (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 did not always ensure people’s needs were assessed and plans were out in place to meet them. The registered manager told us they carried out assessments and used these to form peoples care plans. However, partners told us they had identified gaps in the care plans people had in place and actions were given to the provider to address this. We saw care plans did not cover all of people’s needs. For example, one person was diagnosed with diabetes and there was no guidance in place for staff on how to support the person to manage their condition. In another example, a person’s nutritional needs had changed, and this had not been updated in their care plan. This meant we could not be assured people’s needs had been assessed and care plans were in place to meet them. However, staff had a good knowledge of people’s needs and could describe how they supported people and people, and their relatives told us they were involved in the process.

The provider did not always ensure people’s care and treatment plans were up to date and in line with best practice. People had their nutritional needs assessed; however, these were not always reviewed to ensure accurate guidance was in place for staff in line with best practice when people’s needs changed. The provider had other tools in place to support evidence-based care for example, they used a falls risk assessment when people were at risk of falls and moving and handling risk assessments for those requiring support with mobility. The risk assessments were used to inform a care plan to minimise the risks and support people effectively.

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. The registered manager told us there was a consistent staff team in place that have been working there for many years and work well together. Verbal handovers were used including the use of electronic systems to share information about people. A staff member told us, “At handover the team leader would tell us about people and ask us to monitor and document things”. Partners told us that staff were proactive in sharing information with other relevant professionals such as District Nurses (DN), Tissue Viability Nurse (TVN), General Practitioner (GP), Case Managers, Dietitians, Social Workers, and SALT where appropriate.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing. The provider’s system did not always ensure people had guidance in place when they had a medical condition, for example, in relation to diabetes. However, staff were able to tell us how they supported people with this. Staff told us people were able to access appointments with health professionals and their advice was always followed. Records did not always show updated advice from health professionals. However, people and their relatives felt supported to maintain and improve their health. A relative told us about changes to a person’s needs since coming to the service and how this had improved their health and wellbeing.

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. The provider did not always consider a change in people’s needs despite monthly reviews taking place. Where people were falling that was no analysis completed to determine the cause, and this was not shared with the staff team. However, staff were aware of changes and adjusted the care people needed accordingly. Staff gave us examples where people had improved since living at the service. One staff member described how a person had been experiencing anxiety driven behaviour before coming to live at the service and had now improved and were settled.

The provider did not always ensure the systems in place to assess capacity and record best interest decisions were effectively used. People had their consent sought prior to receiving care and support. Staff told us they sought consent for example, when offering people their medicines. We saw where staff asked people about their care and they declined, staff withdrew and came back later. The provider had a system in place to assess people’s capacity to consent to their care and treatment. Individual mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were recorded and linked to peoples care plans. However, one person did not have the relevant assessments included in their care plan for a decision around medicines management. The provider said this was an oversight and they would ensure the documentation was updated for this person.