Alicia 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. For example, where people had assessed needs in relation to emotional distress, we found care plans lacked sufficient detail to enable staff to understand and support them. However, relatives told us they were involved in care planning, one relative said, “We as a family have been involved in the care planning and regular reviews.”

Care plans lacked evidence that individuals had been engaged in the planning process, including considering what was important to them. However, the provider used recognised assessment tools to identify risk, for example, a malnutrition screening tool and a pressure risk tool. This information was used to identify and mitigate risks to people’s health. A relative told us, “The carers do physiotherapy with [relative] every day, to improve [relative’s] posture”.

Where clinical tasks were delegated, the provider did not have clear competency assessments in place, this meant they could not be assured information to understand the task and people’s needs was consistent. Where people experience emotional distress, records did not always provide clear guidance for staff on how to best support people.

However, people told us they could access health services as required. A daily meeting was held to raise any concerns and to share information along the team. Where people required referral to other professionals this was carried out quickly. A relative said, “They will call the GP when necessary.”

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives.People had their nutritional needs assessed and received appropriate nutrition, where they were intolerant to food groups or needed their food to be fortified. One staff member told us, “If people are losing weight, we fortify their meals and drinks, things like adding cream, cheese, all things to help them gain weight.”

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to make sure it was effective and met their needs. For example, we identified concerns in monitoring how people were supported when emotionally distressed, medicines safety and environmental risks. The provider had not independently identified these concerns before our assessment and only took action once we had identified risks.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Where people lacked the capacity to make their own decisions, the provider had completed Mental Capacity Act (MCA) assessments with an accompanying best interest decision, these were detailed and decision specific. Staff had received training in MCA and during our assessment we observed staff ask people for their consent before providing support.