Saint Lawrence Residential Care 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 were effective because they checked and discussed people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. People’s needs were assessed, and this was recorded in detailed care plans and risk assessments. Relatives reported discussions taking place about specific health needs, such as pressure care or eating. However, the involvement of people in the development and review of their care plan was not always evident. The registered manager updated the way that discussions with people and their families was recorded after our feedback.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. People received care that met their day-to-day needs, particularly around food and hydration. Care plans and risk assessments showed referrals to services such as SALT (Speech and Language Therapy) teams to support people at risk of aspiration or choking. A healthcare professional told us “The staff are great. They follow our guidance and escalate concerns when needed.”. Inspectors observed that lunch “looked and smelled good” and was enjoyed by people, and relatives told us, “[Name] loves the food” and “The cook works so hard.”

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 worked together to provide coordinated and effective support for people. Handovers between staff teams were recorded within the care planning system and were updated throughout each shift. People and their relatives had seen an improvement in communication since the registered manager had been in post. We spoke with healthcare professionals who were supporting people living in the service. They told us “The staff are great. They get things done and follow our guidance.”

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 care plans contained information about their health needs, giving staff the information required to support them. Healthy options at mealtimes were encouraged, with flexibility to cater for people’s preferences. We saw people receiving support from district nurses and occupational therapists to help them maintain their mobility and independence. Some people engaged in the activities provided, while others remained in their rooms or chose not to join in. However, the feedback from people about the activities offered was mixed and we saw evidence that it was not always planned.

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 found gaps in the recording of the effectiveness of PRN(as required) medicines, and inconsistent action related to health concerns such as constipation. Relatives described delays in communication about incidents and unclear updates about health changes. Comments such as, “We’re not told every time this happens,” showed that outcomes for people were not consistently monitored or reviewed. There was no evidence of routine analysis or learning from outcomes, which placed people at risk of avoidable decline or unmet need.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People were offered choices in their daily routines, including meals, clothing, and washing preferences. One relative said, “Yes, they ask [Name],” and another told us, “[Name] has lots of choices.”. Although some people were not always able or willing to engage, there was consistent evidence that staff made efforts to obtain consent in line with people’s wishes. Relatives told us staff sought consent before providing care and treated people respectfully. Examples included staff asking, “Are we OK to do this?” and “Are you OK with this?” before offering personal care or support.