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 67 (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.

The leadership team assessed people’s support needs as part of the preadmission process to ensure they could be met by the service. People had care plans setting out care and support required, which was reviewed regularly. People’s needs were assessed using a range of assessment tools, these were reviewed regularly to identify if people’s needs had changed.

A relative told us, “I’ve looked at the support plan, and they were covering all things that were needed.”

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. The provider used recognised tools to help assess people’s needs and make changes if necessary. These included the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) which is used to assess people’s risk of malnutrition. Staff were kept up to date with people’s changing needs. A staff member told us, “We have the care plans on our devices, and the nurses tell us of changes.”

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 were supported by staff who communicated with external professionals and shared relevant information when needed. Communication with healthcare professionals was documented in people’s care plans.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People were not always supported to access the community to enjoy meaningful activities. This meant that the provider could not be assured they were consistently supporting people’s quality of life.

Relatives said people were not taken out into their community where they needed support to do so. A relative told us, “People are not taken out in the community, it was discussed with the manager in February/March residents and family meeting. [Manager] has said she would encourage it. They have no transport.”

During our inspection the home manager left, and the provider appointed a new manager, we feedback to the new manager our concern regarding people being supported to access their community.

People were provided with choices for meals, a relative told us that there were limited choices but since the resident and relative meetings in March the response by the service has increased the variety. We observed people’s mealtime experience and a variety of choices were given to people.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and

consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. For example, we found some people who required repositioning every 2 hours or 4 hours to reduce the risk of skin damage, were not being repositioned within those timeframes. This put people at risk of damage to their skin. We found no harm had come to people. When we informed the leadership team, they were proactive in reviewing all people at risk and ensured regular oversight was made.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Where a person did not have capacity to make their own decision, or had fluctuating capacity, the provider had completed mental capacity assessments. This meant the service had acted in line with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) code of practice. Staff had received training in MCA and understood what consent meant. We observed staff seeking consent before supporting people’s needs.