St Gregory's House 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 of this key question, we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes.

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 was effective when assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Some people and their relatives told us they had been involved in their care planning, however some also told us they had not. Care plans did not always identify all people’s needs. Where records had been reviewed monthly, changes to their needs had not always been identified. People’s differing communications needs had been recorded. A variety of clinical assessments tools were used to assess and manage people’s needs.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. People received care, treatment and support that was evidence-based and in line with good practice standards.

People told us they felt staff knew their relative’s needs well and supported them in the right way. Where people had different dietary needs the kitchen staff told us they had been fully informed and regularly updated. Kitchen staff informed us that people’s individual choice, preference and needs were fully supported, and any specific dietary needs and requirements were identified on admission. Kitchen staff informed us that produce for meals was sourced locally wherever possible. We saw people were supported with eating and drinking where they needed it. However, people’s care records were not always reflective of the current level of support required to eat. Feedback about the food choices and quality were all positive. One person said, “The food is good and to my liking.”

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. There was a good working relationship seen with healthcare professionals

Care records were electronic, and these were accessible to staff in live time with current information. We observed regular handovers of information were in place at each shift change. Meetings were held regularly for sharing information. Weekly clinical reviews of care were held in the home with the GP and/or surgery practice staff. Information was being shared effectively with other organisations and records showed evidence of working well with a variety of external services.

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 were fully supported in making choices about their own health needs. People were supported to access a variety of external health professionals such as the dentist, optician and podiatrist as they needed to. One person told us, “I was not feeling well and the staff got the doctor out to see me. They are good at checking on us.”

The provider’s systems and processes did not always record accurate and current information to routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it and then be able demonstrate good outcomes. However, they did ensure that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

We did not see that the regular reviews of records were effective or fully completed where people’s outcomes were reassessed. People’s records were not always current and opportunities for monitoring and demonstrating positive outcomes for people were being missed.

The provider’s systems and processes did not always record effectively where people’s rights and consent might be impacted. People’s needs and wishes were upheld.

People’s capacity and ability to consent was not always recorded or reviewed as necessary. The records used for obtaining consent were not always completed in line with the MCA. Relatives who had legal responsibility such as a power of attorney told us they had been involved in making decisions and kept up to date about people’s needs. We observed staff knew people well and were courteous and respectful when asking people to do things.