Halmer Court

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 changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 62 (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.

People’s needs had been assessed upon admission, providing an initial understanding of their support requirements. However, further work was required to ensure care plans were consistently updated and accurately reflected individuals’ current abilities and changing needs. Care planning processes did not always demonstrate a person-centred approach.

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.

The service was working towards improving the quality of care through recognised tools and approaches. A dementia strategy was in development, aimed at raising the standard of care for people living with dementia. While this work was ongoing, it showed a commitment to using best practice guidance to shape future improvements.

Staff used standard clinical tools such as the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) and the Waterlow score to assess nutritional risk and skin integrity. These helped to identify people at risk and supported early intervention.

When people became unwell, staff used the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) to monitor their condition and respond appropriately. There were also systems in place to observe and support people following a fall, helping to identify any changes or concerns that might need further attention.

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.

Staff generally worked well together to support people’s needs, and there was a developing whole-home approach that encouraged collaboration across different roles, including care staff, housekeeping, and support teams. This approach helped to create a more joined-up way of working, although it was still becoming embedded in day-to-day practice.

Despite these challenges, staff remained committed to working in people’s best interests. They engaged with external professionals and services when needed and were generally proactive in seeking advice and support to meet people’s needs. Communication with outside agencies was usually effective, and staff worked to ensure people received coordinated care.

While there was room for improvement in some areas, the overall approach to teamwork and partnership working supported positive outcomes for people.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Care plans did not always reflect people’s ability to manage aspects of their own care or clearly identify where additional support was needed. This meant staff did not consistently have the information required to provide care that was tailored to individual needs and preferences. For example, people were not always aware of their own care plans, and input from individuals was not consistently documented.

As a result, opportunities for people to take ownership of their health and wellbeing were limited. While some individuals received well-coordinated support, others experienced gaps in care planning and communication, which led to inconsistent support in managing their health and wellbeing. For example, one relative reported that their family member had been promised a shower but did not receive it until the issue was raised with staff. Although this was resolved, it indicated that care delivery was not always aligned with personal preferences or expectations.

People were helped to get the care and treatment they needed, in ways that suited them. For example, staff supported a person to attend a health screening for diabetic eye disease, making sure they didn’t miss out on important checks.

The service did identify risks to people’s health and wellbeing and prioritised activities and support to prevent deterioration where possible. For example, staff supported people to remain as active and mobile as they could, encouraging participation in physical activities such as exercise classes and walks in the garden during better weather.

The service had also developed a relationship with the local primary school. During the inspection, we observed a visit where children read to or chatted with people. At other times, the school choir visited. It was clear that these interactions were enjoyed by both people living at the home and the children. One family member shared, “[My relative] loves the school interaction.”

In addition, some people told us they enjoyed using the garden in better weather and taking part in physical activities. One person said, “I go to the exercise classes and some bingo.”

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 both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Staff monitored people’s needs and responded appropriately when healthcare advice was required, helping to ensure individuals received timely and effective support. However, care plans did not consistently reflect people’s personal aspirations or what positive outcomes looked like for them, such as everyday goals like going to the shops. The service had recently begun engaging with people and their relatives to better understand their expectations, which marked an early step towards more personalised care planning.

At the time of inspection, the service was developing its approach to identifying and achieving positive outcomes in line with legislation, national standards, and evidence-based good practice. While systems were in place to monitor the effectiveness of care and support, these were not yet fully embedded. Feedback from people, families, and professionals was beginning to be sought and considered, but further work was needed to ensure this informed continuous improvement and outcome-focused care.

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

Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of the importance of consent and the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). Where individuals had capacity, their wishes were consistently respected and upheld in day-to-day care. Where capacity was lacking, decisions were made in the person’s best interests, involving family members and relevant health and social care professionals. This reflected a person-centred approach and a commitment to promoting autonomy and safeguarding individuals’ rights.