Foxleigh Grove 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 requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to 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 received mixed feedback about people’s experience. Some people told us their admission process was rushed. One person said, “They weren’t prepared for me here. They didn’t know my dietary needs. There was no time for the chef to come and see me and find out either.” However, relatives told us there was a thorough assessment carried out by the provider before people moved into the home. The provider told us about their systems and processes in place, which included offering a tour of the home to people looking to move into the service.
 

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.

People’s health was monitored and where there were concerns, recognised tools were used, for example the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) for measuring people’s likelihood of developing malnutrition.

One professional told us, “There is a palpable culture of 'positive risk-taking' where the registered manager encourages my autonomy in rehabilitating residents who might otherwise be considered 'too frail' elsewhere. This culture filters down to the care staff, who feel empowered to assist with mobility plans because they know they have the full support and resources from management.”
 

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.

People’s care plans and risk assessments outlined information for staff and partner agencies. One person told us, “I had a chest infection recently which came on very quickly, but [Nurses] were very prompt and they arranged for the doctor to come very quickly.”

The registered manager told us how staff worked to support people. They said, “We have structured mornings and afternoons, staff are allocated. People are doing things within their skillset.” Professionals told us, “The service utilises GP weekly rounds. [Service] refers residents in a timely manner to multi-disciplinary teams for complete resident assessments. [Service] seeks support from the Care Home Support Team where needed.” Another professional told us, “The electronic care planning system allows me to leave 'Professional Notes' that are accessible to visiting GPs and Occupational Therapists, ensuring that everyone involved in the [person]'s care is working toward the same functional outcomes.”
 

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

We found although care plans and risk assessments were in place, they did not always capture detailed information about people’s needs and risks. For example, for one person with a catheter, there was no instructions or guidance for care staff to follow regarding the routine care of a urinary catheter. There was a risk staff may not understand and recognise the signs to look out for with high-risk needs such as this.

One partner told us, “We have a good system for the weekly care home ward rounds, and communication with the practice and other services as needed in between times to provide excellent care.”
 

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.

Professionals told us, “[Staff] are very good at monitoring intake and weight and so identifying need for review. The chef will provide bespoke diets as needed and happily boosts nutritional intake though high calorie milkshakes or supplementing meals or providing snacks. The staff are also very good at prompting residents to drink more especially when unwell or the weather is hot, to reduce risk of dehydration and urinary infections.”

Relatives told us how people were supported to access external services such as the dentist and chiropodist. There was also an in-house physiotherapist, provided for by the service.
 

The provider ensured people’s rights were protected by seeking consent where possible and applying the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) appropriately when people could not consent.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People's rights to make their own decisions, where possible, were protected and respected. People confirmed to us that staff provided support they needed and according to their wishes. Staff sought people's consent before providing care or support.

We observed staff were polite, kind and respectful towards people and respected their decisions. If people did not want to do something or take part in an activity, staff responded appropriately.
Care plans reflected people’s wishes and preferences, and staff knew people well and promoted independence, choice and control even when people were subject to DoLS.