A M Care Home 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 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 gaining appropriate consent for care and treatment as well as ensuring the service is operating within legal frameworks and best practice.

This service scored 54 (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 found that care plans and reviews were not always done with the input of people at the service or significant others like family.

We reviewed 4 people’s care plans and found that all reviews held were conducted by staff, with no opportunity to record people’s views and work in partnership with them. We were told by one staff member “When we first make the care plan we talk to [people], but when we do the reviews [3-monthly] staff do these ones”. By not regularly involving people when care and support plans are being reviewed, the service restricts itself from some of the most valuable and important information to provide effective care and treatment in line with people’s wishes and preferences.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. We found that staff did not consistently follow evidence based approaches, for example, when supporting a person who experienced emotional distress. There was no or limited records that non-pharmacological calming strategies or distraction techniques were attempted before PRN medicines were given, even though the care, support and protocol plans required this approach.

The care plan did not include clear information about what triggered the person’s distress, or what strategies helped to reassure them. Staff had not explored the underlying causes of the person’s behaviour, and there was no evidence that increasing use of PRN medicines had prompted a review, identification of triggers, or contact with healthcare professionals.
Records did not show whether any non pharmacological steps had been attempted beforehand, despite this being required in the protocol.

Overall, the care plan and supporting records did not reflect an evidence based approach. They did not help staff to understand the person’s needs, manage their distress safely, or reduce reliance on PRN medicines based approach. They did not help staff to understand the person’s needs, manage their distress safely, or reduce reliance on PRN medicines.
 

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.

We found evidence of positive collaboration between this service and other teams and professionals, for example one independent advocate who supports a person at the service told us “Never had an issue getting information I need, I get [persons] file to read. Never been any resistance, they have been quite accommodating.” A social worker who supports another person at the service told us “Staff answer questions I post at Care and Support Reviews effectively. They [handovers of information] are at a good level yes.”
 

One social worker who supports a person at the service told us this “Since taking over from previous [management] at A M Care Home, the [person] I am assigned to has been going into the community more and being more socially and physically active, such as picnics etc. This is a joy to see as for years the [person] would be too scared to go into the community. Evident that whatever the service is doing to promote healthier lives re physical and mental wellbeing, it is occurring and working. Service manager stated that she had put in a routine and timetable for [people], and this was evident to see as my [person] used to sleep all day and not do well at night time, but since this routine, her sleep is more regulated and better.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible. We saw evidence of a good selection of activities and social engagement opportunities being offered to people. Trips to local bowling alleys, cinema trips, pub visits as well as regular social clubs were all on offer. People were also supported to do their own shopping where possible to increase independence.

 

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 and consistent, or that they met the expectations of people themselves. For example, we found that medicines were not always effectively administered and monitored to ensure that they worked in an effective and safe way.

We found that quality assurance feedback that had been collected from staff, family and people at the service had not been reviewed or analysed by management. This was not done despite the feedback being collected between the months of August 2025 and October 2025. The service missed opportunities to review and improve the service from people’s feedback.
 

We found significant concerns around consent to care and treatment at this service; In addition to other concerns outlined in this report, we found that some people were subject to restrictions and appropriate consent or best interest legislation had not been followed. 2 people at the service were restricted from accessing the community without staff support, we found no evidence that the provider had followed principles in the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). There were no MCA assessments done, we also found that legal requirements to apply for a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) orders had not been completed. As a result, some people at the service were subject to restrictive measures without appropriate consent and best interest procedures being followed.
We did find that 2 other people at the service in similar positions had the correct consent and orders in place.