Archived: Alston View Nursing and Residential 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 62 (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 assessed and reviewed people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Staff assessed people’s needs and reviewed risks to people’s health and wellbeing regularly. Staff accessed people’s care plans via electronic handheld devices and information was updated in a timely manner. Staff recorded their daily care tasks on the same devices which managers reviewed to make sure care was being provided as per the care plan. Staff wrote care notes in a person-centred way.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

People and relatives we spoke to said they were not always involved in planning people’s care. Some people were required to have pressure relief every 2 hours to maintain the health of their skin, however records indicated that on more than 1 occasion there were several hours before staff supported people. One of these people had a pressure sore already. Therefore we were not assured that people were having their needs met as per the care plan which meant there was a risk to their health.

One person had developed a wound to their foot, however staff had not identified or escalated this in a timely manner to make sure appropriate care and treatment was sought and delivered. After this was highlighted, staff commenced a wound care plan to treat.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They shared their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

The manager and staff shared information effectively about people and their needs across different services. People only needed to tell their story once. There were appropriate policies such as ‘co-operation with other providers’ to support this. Staff made referrals to external agencies such as mental health services and the continence service.

Staff at the home worked well as a team and participated in regular meetings.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control.

People were not always supported to take part in stimulating activities or to access the community on a regular basis. Relatives commented on the lack of support for this, and it was mainly families that provided support or paid for extra staff to support people to access community activities. A relative said, “I would like [my relative] to have walks but it doesn't happen. There are not enough staff to provide this activity.”

However, there was a weekly ward round so that a health professional could review people’s health. The provider arranged for external visitors such as singers to entertain people or to help some people complete armchair exercises.

Following our feedback the provider confirmed they would consider employing a dedicated activities co-ordinator.

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.

We saw gaps in the monitoring of some health outcomes. For example, for 2 people, their care plans directed staff to weigh them weekly, however the records showed this was being done monthly. We were not assured that people’s health and wellbeing was being monitored to make sure their health and wellbeing did not deteriorate unnecessarily.

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

Staff completed training in The Mental Capacity Act and understood the concept of consent. We saw that consent for care and treatment was obtained in people’s care plans and records. The provider made applications to the local authority if people were at risk of being deprived of their liberty.