Quarry Mount

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’s needs were assessed prior to them moving to the service. These were detailed and were used to form the care plan. Relatives told us they were involved where appropriate in the creation and reviews of people’s care plans. The manager commented, “It all starts from preadmission, we build as we go. Changes are reflected in people’s care plans.”

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.

Staff used evidence-based tools to assess risks to people, such as the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool [MUST]. Leaders kept up to date with legislation and evidence-based standards by regularly accessing the CQC and the Social Care Institute for Excellence website. Leaders worked together across the provider and other homes to share good practice.

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 told us they worked well together as a team. We saw evidence of team meetings where key messages were discussed. One person told us they had heard staff complaining about other staff in front of them, we raised this with leaders for them to address.

Staff worked well with other professionals. One professional told us, “I have always found [manager] and [staff member] to be responsive, collaborative and very committed to delivering person centred care for their residents.”

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’s health needs were managed. For example, during our site visit one person appeared unwell. We observed staff checking the person’s health by checking their blood pressure and encouraging fluids. People received regular healthcare appointments. One professional commented, “I frequently see Physiotherapists and Occupational Therapists within Quarry Mount, working with residents to ensure safe and effective care is given.” People told us they felt staff at the service worked well with other services and supported them to manage any health needs.

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.

Staff recorded people’s weight on a regular basis where people were identified to be underweight. This enabled staff to work towards a healthy body mass index for people. Leaders completed observations of care to ensure people received good care. Where people were at risk of dehydration, their fluid input was recorded.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

People had mental capacity assessments completed, however best interest decisions did not always involve relevant people, such as those who held lasting power of attorney or advocates. There was also no mental capacity paperwork in relation to people’s bedroom doors being locked, which meant there was no evidence this was in people’s best interest for those who lacked capacity to consent to this arrangement.

However, staff had completed training in the Mental Capacity Act [MCA] and understood how to apply this in practice. We saw MCA was discussed in a recent team meeting and information was provided to staff.