Patcham 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 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 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. People’s needs were assessed before they were admitted to the home. This was to ensure their needs could be met robustly and safely. We observed the registered manager arranging to visit a person face to face to complete a thorough assessment before agreeing to the admission. Staff had regular handover meetings to discuss any changes in people’s needs, and when a new person was admitted, they were given time to read their care plans to enable them to support the person effectively.

Staff and management 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. There was effective monitoring and recording of people’s needs, including nutritional and fluid intake. Recognised tools such as the Waterlow had been used to assess whether people were at risk of skin breakdown and the results were used to shape care and treatment to ensure good outcomes for people.

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. We received positive feedback from people, their relatives and professionals about the communication from staff and management. One relative commented, “The home completed all necessary risk assessments promptly. The transition from hospital to the home was handled as smoothly as possible.” A professional told us, “Staff are proactive, and we always receive referrals and updates from the team with lots of information to allow us to provide advice.”

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. Records showed that people had been referred to appropriate external services as and when needed. This included regular health checks such as opticians, chiropodists and dentists. Where specialist guidance was provided, this was adhered to. For example, if a specific diet for a person had been advised by the speech and language therapists (SALT), we saw staff following this guidance correctly.

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. Care plans were personalised to ensure outcomes could be met and people received safe and effective support. Regular reviews were carried out to ensure people's support was monitored and outcomes achieved. External professionals confirmed that people’s health and wellbeing was effectively reviewed to ensure people’s needs continued to be met.

Staff and the management team told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Robust assessments had been completed regarding people’s mental capacity, the outcome of these were specific and documented within people’s care plans. Where people lacked capacity to make decisions, staff acted in their best interests and their representatives were involved as appropriate. One relative told us, “I was fully involved in the development of [person’s] care plan, which I believe reflects their needs very well. Staff always try to engage [person] in conversation, even though this can be hard and they tend to keep to himself.”

Staff had undertaking training and demonstrated a good knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). We saw them using this knowledge throughout the inspection visit. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications and authorisations were in place for people around any restrictions within their lives that they did not have capacity to consent to.