Dresden House Limited

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 improved to good.

This service scored 71 (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.

The registered manager or deputy manager assessed people’s needs before they were admitted to the service to ensure their needs could be safely met at Dresden House. Ongoing monitoring took place, and any changes in people’s needs were reported to relatives and other agencies when required. If the provider could no longer meet a person’s needs, staff worked with external professionals to identify a more suitable placement, including for people who required nursing care.

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 and their relatives were involved in the care planning process. One relative told us, “Since being in the home, I can see an improvement in [person’s name], we are considering a long-term arrangement if [person] is happy.” Another relative told us, “I’ve been contacted by the deputy for more information, I feel involved in their care.”

People’s dietary needs were assessed and met in line with evidence‑based guidance, with specialist diets implemented as recommended by healthcare professionals to promote safe and effective care.

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 worked effectively across teams and with external services to support joined‑up care. Information was shared through structured handovers, daily records and communication with professionals, meaning key assessments and updates followed people when they moved between services. This ensured continuity of care and meant people did not have to repeat their story multiple times.

In addition, 2 external agencies had agreed to support the home in the event of an unplanned emergency, helping to ensure continuity of care and people’s safety during unexpected situations.

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.

Staff were knowledgeable about people’s specific health conditions and used guidance from healthcare professionals to ensure care was appropriate and safe. Some people had regular input from healthcare professionals and were supported to attend appointments. If people became unwell the appropriate healthcare support was accessed as observed on the day of the inspection.

People’s dietary needs were understood and met, including specialist diets recommended to support their health or medical conditions.

The provider had systems in place to monitor people’s care and treatment; however, these were not always effective in identifying issues or ensuring accurate information was recorded.

The electronic care system did not pull all relevant details about a person’s wellbeing into one place, which meant important updates could be missed. For example, a healthcare professional had been called on the day of the inspection to assess one person, but their records did not reflect they had been unwell. This created a risk staff may not always have access to the full and accurate information they need to support people safely.

Staff used reviews, observations and feedback to identify where care could be strengthened and to ensure people continued to receive appropriate support.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Where people lacked capacity to make specific decisions about their care and support, staff completed mental capacity assessments and involved relevant professionals and those important to the person in best‑interest decision‑making. Staff we spoke with understood consent and the need to ensure people consented to their care. One staff member told us, “I do understand capacity, I know people can chose things, but I always ask a senior if I’m not sure.”

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that people who did not have the capacity to agree to their care and treatment had the appropriate legal safeguards in place, including Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).