Darwin 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 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 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 provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Staff demonstrated good knowledge of individuals and involved professionals appropriately. People and relatives told us that they were actively involved in the care assessment process. One relative told us, “I have meetings with the team leader, and I am always updated on any health issues with [relative]. I have no concerns there." Another relative told us about their relative’s transition into the home. They said, “The transition was great, they settled in within a week after being unsettled, staff gave plenty of reassurance to [relative] and me.”

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. Nationally recognised risk assessments for skin integrity and malnutrition were used consistently. When higher risk scores were identified, appropriate actions were implemented. For example, staff completed MUST (Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool) assessments to determine whether people were at risk of malnutrition. Where a risk was identified, referrals were made to dieticians via the GP.

People received appropriate support with their nutrition and hydration. People said they were satisfied with the food provided. We observed staff offering choice and respecting people’s wishes. Staff offered each resident a choice of drinks, including alcoholic options. The dining area was well presented, with nicely dressed tables and pleasant background music.

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 staff team shared information about people’s needs effectively during handovers. This information was clear and enabled external professionals to have an accurate understanding. One professional told us, “They are very good at Darwin House. We have a good working relationship with the seniors who share concerns about people’s health in a timely way.”

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 worked closely with other organisations to deliver effective care and support to people. The registered manager regularly sought advice from community health professionals such as the GP, district nurses and the community falls team. Weight monitoring was routinely completed, with referrals to dietitians and involvement from speech and language therapy (SALT) where required. This process supported staff to achieve good outcomes for people and to help maintain their health. One relative told us, “They pick up on any concerns there very quickly. I always get a call if any health concerns arise with [relative].”

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.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent. People had support to improve and maintain their quality of life. There was evidence of supporting people to access social opportunities to improve people’s well-being. One relative told us, “I would like to say, [relative] went into the home from hospital, not being able to walk, was in a wheelchair and I will say on deaths door. The home has got them walking and [relative] does not need a wheelchair now.”

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Staff were observed knocking on people’s doors and when asked, had good knowledge on seeking consent before delivering care. All staff had received up to date training on the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). We found 1 person was receiving their medication crushed and administered in food; however, they had fluctuating capacity and records did not demonstrate an appropriate Mental Capacity Act (MCA) assessment or best interests decision had been completed to support this practice. This meant consent to care and treatment was not clearly evidenced. We discussed this with the manager during the inspection, who took immediate action to address the concerns. Following the inspection, the service confirmed an MCA assessment and best interests decision had been completed, with involvement from all relevant people.