St Giles Charity Estates

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 remained Good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (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.

People and their relatives told us they were involved in assessing, planning and reviewing care. This helped to make sure support was tailored to each person. People’s needs were assessed before they moved into the home.

Care plans were person-centred. They reflected people’s abilities, communication needs, goals, health conditions and any specific support required. This gave staff clear guidance on how to support people and promote a good quality of life.

Staff encouraged people to remain independent where possible, such as supporting them to manage their own personal care or move around using walking aids.

Records showed that people’s health needs were reviewed regularly, and referrals to healthcare professionals were made without delay when needed.

The provider generally planned and delivered care in line with people’s needs, but processes were not always followed consistently, and some risks were not acted on promptly.

The provider used recognised assessment tools to review people’s needs. This included the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) and the Waterlow risk assessment for pressure care. These were completed as part of people’s care assessments.

Care records showed that staff worked with healthcare professionals and followed their advice to support people’s health and wellbeing. However, we found one person had a MUST score of 4 and had not been referred to a dietitian. We raised this with the registered manager, who reviewed the process and took action straight away.

We observed a positive mealtime experience. Food was well presented and looked appetising, including modified meals. People were offered a choice of drinks. Staff provided support where needed to help people eat comfortably and safely.

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.

The provider worked closely with a range of healthcare professionals, including GPs, district nurses and phlebotomists. We spoke with two healthcare professionals who both gave positive feedback. They told us, “This is one of the best homes we visit. Staff are very kind and helpful. They know the people they care for very well.”

Staff said communication within the home was good. Information about people’s needs was shared quickly with team members and external professionals when needed. Staff had easy access to care plans, which helped them provide consistent and safe support. Daily handovers were part of normal practice. Staff also told us they felt supported and described a positive team culture that included managers.

One person said, “Yes, they arrange things like appointments. If it’s an annual hospital check, I will take him. Between us it works well.” We also received positive feedback from the local authority responsible for monitoring the care of people they fund.

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 supported to see healthcare professionals when needed. They told us staff helped them live well and respected their rights and choices. One person said, “It’s lovely, far too much really. No criticism from me. We have cake, biscuits and fruit if we want them during the day.” Another person told us, “We have two choices and it’s all brilliant. Today’s is my favourite.”

Care plans included clear information about people’s health needs and how they wanted to be supported. They also set out goals to help people stay as independent as possible.

Records showed good communication with GPs, community nurses and specialist services. This helped to identify and respond to health risks at an early stage.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People’s health and wellbeing were reviewed regularly by staff and with input from relevant health and social care professionals. Staff understood people’s health needs, recognised any changes or deterioration, and recorded this clearly.

Vital signs and weights were monitored regularly. If there were any concerns, these were escalated appropriately and referrals were made when needed.

One relative told us, “Yes, it’s helped. (Relative) has been coming in for three years for respite. They were very poorly in hospital in 2022. When they came here, they put weight back on and staff helped them become mobile again after doing nothing in hospital for six weeks. It’s brilliant.”

The registered manager and staff understood the importance of involving people in their care to improve outcomes. When incidents happened, people and, where appropriate, their relatives were consulted. This helped staff review their approach and make improvements to the support provided.

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

People and their relatives told us staff always asked for consent before providing care. One person said staff were very kind and respectful. People also told us staff always knocks on the doors before entering rooms.

At the time of our assessment, no one required a Mental Capacity Act (MCA) assessment. However, the registered manager had a good understanding of the MCA, best interest meetings and when these would be needed if someone lacked capacity. They also understood their responsibilities under Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Staff had received MCA training and understood the importance of gaining consent. They told us they always asked for permission before supporting people with personal care. During our visit, we saw staff explaining information in a way people could understand and giving them time to make decisions.