Well Springs 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 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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.
We found some people did not have relevant care plans or risk assessments in place, and some care records contained inaccuracies or inconsistencies which meant they did not always reflect people's current assessed needs or the care required to safely meet those needs. We also received mixed feedback from relatives about whether care consistently met people's needs, with a relative telling us, "I have asked them a few times to stop serving [person] orange juice, but they still do. Sometimes the link between carers is not there." However, people and relatives were generally involved in care planning, and some care records were detailed, regularly reviewed and supported by clinical monitoring tools.
 

The provider ensured people received care and support in line with recognised evidence-based guidance and good practice.
People's nutritional needs were monitored through regular weight checks, nutritional screening tools and ongoing review, with staff using approaches such as fortified diets and nutritional supplements where required. The provider was participating in the Support and Train to Eat Well (STEW) programme, a dietitian-led initiative designed to improve nutritional care, malnutrition management and mealtime experiences in care homes. We observed people being offered sufficient food and drink and receiving support during mealtimes in line with their assessed needs. One relative told us, “The food is good, and they come round regularly to offer [person] drinks.”
 

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 provider supported effective communication and partnership working to ensure people received coordinated care and treatment. Staff told us handovers took place at each shift change and helped keep them informed about people's needs, wellbeing and any changes in their condition. Records demonstrated the service worked collaboratively with health and social care professionals, and professional advice and recommendations were appropriately documented and shared with staff. Whilst we received some mixed feedback about communication between staff, overall feedback from relatives and external professionals was positive, with one relative telling us, "They always tell us what's happening – they are on the ball."
 

The provider supported people to maintain their health and wellbeing through personalised care, access to nutritious food and ongoing healthcare support.

Staff knew people well, and records showed people received routine health monitoring and input from relevant healthcare professionals when required. The service also promoted physical wellbeing through activities and opportunities to encourage movement and mobility. However, opportunities to support physical wellbeing were not always consistently available for people with reduced mobility, and there was limited evidence of alternative approaches being considered to increase participation.
 

The provider monitored people's outcomes and used information to support improvements in care and wellbeing.

Monitoring records, including behaviour charts and food and fluid records, were reviewed to identify patterns, trends and when additional support was required. We also saw examples of care being tailored to improve quality of life for 1 person. For example, staff sourced special meals for a person around Christmas time, which they had requested. Feedback was positive, with a relative telling us, "When [person] went into hospital, they were very poorly. They are so much better now back at Well Springs."
 

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

We observed occasions where staff placed protective aprons on people before meals without seeking their consent and moved people in wheelchairs without communicating with them or asking for their consent. We also observed how some people were not always involved in decisions about where they wished to spend their time. These practices did not consistently promote people's choice, autonomy and involvement in decisions about their care. However, people and relatives told us they were generally involved in decisions about care, consent was documented within care records, and people told us staff usually sought consent before providing personal care and other support.