Friars Mead

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 changed to requires improvement: This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to consent.

This service scored 58 (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 had an initial assessment which included details of their physical and mental health needs as well as sensory/communication support. There were details about their social interests, culture and religion and anything else important to them.

Staff were task-oriented during meals. We observed lunchtime and found this could have been better for people who needed more support. We saw a person supported to eat by staff called away and it took time for another staff member to replace them, who then stood over the person rather than sitting with them. They were slow to respond when a person began eating their pudding before finishing their main meal, resulting in spillage. Whilst there were options for each course people were not offered both. However, a person told us, “The food is always pretty good and there is always an alternative. It is something on toast for tea and the cakes are homemade.”

Staff engagement and encouragement was limited during mealtimes The tables were laid nicely with tablecloths, placemats, flowers and condiments. We did not see anyone offered the condiments; there were no menus on the table and people were not always aware what the food was. Despite this, a relative told us, “They make a real effort to chat to residents.”

People gave positive feedback about the food at the service. We saw fresh fruit was available for snacks. A person told us, “The food is good and there is plenty of it, and we get lots of drinks as well.” Another person said, “I’m not hungry but the food is always good here.” Another person said, “I have plenty to eat, you can have a cooked breakfast if you want.”

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 handovers were completed 3 times daily to share information. Staff had access to information they needed to provide care via electronic devices.

People’s relatives felt communication with the home was good. A relative said, “I have 1stclass communication with [manager] and senior staff.” Another relative said “They often speak with the family when we visit and are all on first name terms which is really nice to encourage the family atmosphere.”

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 referred to other services when required.

A professional told us, “They are supported to live healthier lives by eating healthy and participating in social activities, including exercises and wellbeing.”

The provider did not have effective systems to monitor people’s outcomes. People did not have charts to monitor food and fluid intake or skin integrity. Where this was recorded in daily records it was unclear how concerns would be identified and escalated.

People were supported to maintain a good quality of life. People’s records included details of their social interests and feedback was positive about activities. A relative told us, “The activity co-ordinators make sure everyone is involved and seen at least once a day, even if they don't take part in the main activities.”

The manager had not completed any mental capacity assessments (MCA). Whilst most people were able to consent to care, some people had started to show signs of cognitive decline. The manager was aware they needed to submit a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) application for a person; this had not been done at the time of our visit, and the manager was unable to locate the MCA related to it.

Another person had a sensor mat in their room due to falls risk. The manager told us they had discussed this with them, there was no documentation to support this, and it had not been reviewed. Therefore, we were not assured the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.

People we spoke with told us staff were respectful and polite and always sought consent before offering support.