White Rose 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 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 75 (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. We found that people’s assessments were thorough and detailed. They reflected a person-centred approach tailored to every person’s unique needs. People and relative’s voices were included in the pre-assessment and a ‘life story’ was created as part of the needs assessment which ensured people’s preferences and wishes were included. A relative told us, “They do discuss [family member’s] care plan with us”. Assessments covered a range of areas including health, medicine, mobility and risk. Care plan reviews took place monthly with people, relatives and staff. This meant that people’s needs were monitored, and their preferences were regularly updated.

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. Clinical assessments tools were in place where needed and staff had good knowledge of people’s dietary requirements, including modified diets. Referrals were made to other healthcare professionals for their expertise, such as speech and language therapists and GPs for advice on swallowing difficulties and diet. People had access to healthy and nutritious meals which met their needs and preferences. People and relatives told us the food was of good standard. People commented, “The food is absolutely delicious, you get plenty, it’s excellent.” And, “You get a choice and if you don’t like anything you can have something else.”

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 worked well with external community professionals to effectively deliver co-ordinated, timely, consistent person-centred care. Plans for transition and referrals to health services considered people’s individual needs, ongoing care arrangements, and expected outcomes. Professionals were contacted regularly for feedback and some of the comments included, “Staff are fantastic and very helpful as always. The home is always welcoming. There is always someone available who is happy to talk about [person’s] care planning.” A professional told us that a familiar member of staff stayed with the professional and the person during an examination, which showed the kind and supportive nature of staff.

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. People told us staff contacted the GP for advice if they were unwell and supported them to attend healthcare appointments. A person told us, “There has been a few occasions where they did get a doctor for me.”

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. Staff undertook regular checks to monitor each person’s health and wellbeing. People and relatives were involved in the reviews of their care plans. People’s care plans identified the person’s care needs, their preferences about their support and how staff could ensure these were met. The provider shared examples of how people’s health and well-being had improved since being in the service. For example, a person who was brought to the service as an emergency admission, was not an appropriate admission. Instead of refusing this person, the service arranged a comprehensive level of support and enabled 1:1 care until the appropriate professionals had assessed this person. The service explained this person was now a permanent resident and was thriving at the service.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People were supported to make their own decisions about their care. The service told us about people’s capacity and how they were able to refuse or give consent for specific decisions. Where people lacked capacity, assessments had been completed with people’s representatives and healthcare professionals and best interest decisions made. People told us, “They knock before coming into my room and they treat me with respect and dignity.”