Milverton 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 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 was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Staff completed detailed pre-admission assessments and developed care plans that reflected people’s individual needs, risks and preferences. Records included clear information about communication, mobility, nutrition, and health conditions, alongside risk management plans such as for falls, skin integrity and nutrition.

Care records were comprehensive and personalised, supporting staff to understand how to care for people effectively. Systems such as the electronic care records system were being used to improve accessibility and ensure information was updated as people’s needs changed. People and relatives felt staff understood needs. One relative said, “I think they know her and what her needs are”.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care 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 recognised tools and professional input to manage health conditions and risks. Care plans included guidance from external professionals such as tissue viability nurses, speech and language therapists and dieticians.

The service worked in partnership with external professionals including GPs, pharmacists and community teams. A new referral system had been introduced to obtain timely advice and sharing of information with specialist health care services to ensure people’s needs were met and care was delivered in line with best 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.

There was improved communication and teamwork within the staff team. Changes to staff shift patterns ensured all staff worked the same hours, which improved handovers and continuity of care. Staff described good teamwork and communication. One staff member said, “We are working as a team… teamwork is good”, while another explained, “Now the whole of the management team are on the same page we’re all going upwards”.

Systems such as handover sheets, communication books and daily allocation of roles ensured information about people’s needs was shared effectively across the team. Staff confirmed that changes in needs were clearly communicated through handovers and records.

The service worked with healthcare professionals and ensured access to medical care, including GP visits and referrals. One relative explained, “When there is a need for a doctor you can see one… they let me know if any health care person is visiting.”

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.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by supporting them to maintain healthy lives and meet their nutritional and wellbeing needs. People were supported to eat and drink well. Care plans included detailed nutritional guidance, and kitchen staff were aware of dietary needs including allergies, religious requirements and information about texture-modified diets. Meals were planned with input from people, and feedback about the food was positive. One person said, “The food is brilliant. I love it!”.

Staff monitored hydration and wellbeing, particularly during hot weather. During observations, staff regularly offered drinks and supported people to remain comfortable.

People were supported to access meaningful activities and maintain wellbeing. Activity provision had been reviewed and improved to ensure it provided mental stimulation as well as opportunity for exercise. Activities were coordinated and tailored to people’s interests, such as themed events and outings. One person said, “I feel better when I’ve been out”.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care 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 worked with people and their families to provide care that met their expectations. Staff encouraged people to regain their strength and supported people to get more confident doing everyday activities. Staff regularly reviewed the progress people were making and adjusted the care and support provided to enable people to have positive outcomes. For example, one person was previously getting their nutritional intake through a Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) feeding tube. Staff noticed this person’s swallowing had improved and, with advice from the speech and language team and the dietician, they were supporting this person to eat more and reduce the amount of nutritional intake through their PEG, giving them back their enjoyment of eating food again.

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

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by seeking consent and acting in line with legal requirements. Care records demonstrated that people’s capacity was assessed and recorded, and staff followed guidance to involve people in decisions where possible. For example, one person was described as lacking capacity, but staff were instructed to “involve them as much as possible” in daily decisions. People with capacity were supported to make their own choices about their care and daily lives. One person told us, “I can do more or less what I like”.

Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) processes were in place, with systems to monitor applications and ensure legal compliance.