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

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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check the consistency of information within plans or effectively update plans when required. Some records reviewed contained inconsistent and contradictory information about people’s care needs and how to support them to stay well. Although people’s care plans had been reviewed regularly, these reviews had not identified or addressed these errors.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. Care was observed to be delivered by staff who were kind and caring. However, care was not always delivered in line with people’s agreed plans of care. For example, one person’s care plan stated that fluids should be thickened and given to the person in a beaker with a spout. This person was observed being given a drink from an open beaker, the use of either a spout or open cup will alter the flow rate of liquids, the correct cup type should be used to mitigate some of the risks associated with choking. Due to the inconsistency between recorded information and observation of care, we could not be assured that care was delivered correctly.

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 information when people moved between different services. The provider worked regularly with visiting professionals. Important information about people, for example any wishes for future care or agreed plans for hospital admission were accessible and reviewed regularly.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. Whilst all staff were observed to be kind to people, people’s health was not always managed effectively. Records showed that a person’s fluid intake levels had fallen significantly below agreed levels in their care plan over the last 2 months. This had not been identified by the provider and had not been discussed with health professionals. Because of this, we could not be assured that people’s health needs were being met and monitored appropriately.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive andconsistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. Records indicated that people who required support to reposition at regular intervals to protect their skin integrity did not always receive this as often as required. The providers monitoring processes had not identified or addressed this issue and we could not be assured that people were receiving the correct levels of care.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People’s care and support plans considered their ability to consent to care and treatment. Assessments were carried out in line with the Mental Capacity Act, with decisions being made in people’s best interests where necessary. During the inspection, staff were observed to offer choices to people throughout the day. Where people were unable to consent to their care and treatment, the provider had notified the local authority in line with current legal requirements.