Sutherlands 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 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. Although there were areas in people’s care plans that would benefit from further review or expanding on the information documented, overall, we found people’s care plans and the assessment of their needs provided enough information about how to care for and support people. People’s needs were reviewed as part of a monthly ‘Resident of the Day’. A relative said, “I’ve not been through [Person’s] care plans. The manager is encouraging families to arrange a meeting with them.”

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. For example, we saw some people required a texture modified diet. Staff were aware of this requirement and provided appropriate modification to meet their needs.

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. People told us they could access health services as required. The GP completed a home visit weekly.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing. For example, people’s dietary needs were catered for. Where people had reduced appetites, people were supported and given encouragement. One relative told us, “[Person] has gone off roasts. The staff will make them cheese and biscuits or a poached egg on toast for something lighter. Following their time in hospital, staff spent time to support them with their meals.”

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. For example, we saw that people’s health was routinely monitored in areas such as their risk of skin breakdown. Action was taken to seek further support when required.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment. Mental capacity assessments were completed and available, however, some lacked sufficient detail about people’s capacity to make specific decisions and consent to their care and treatment. The assessment did not record how the service established that a person had capacity. When individuals were unable to make informed decisions, the provider did not consistently maintain clear records regarding how decisions were made in their best interests. Records lacked details on the options considered, which options were disregarded and the reasons for doing so, as well as an explanation of how the chosen decision was the least restrictive option.