The Sloane 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.

The last rating for this key question was good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people using the service were receiving effective care and treatment.

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 and treatment were effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. A person told us, “They [staff] did a complete assessment of all needs, wishes and preferences. We are always involved and can ask for the care plan at any time.”

People were supported to take an active role in planning and reviewing their care. Assessments and care plans were comprehensive, individualised, and contained details about people’s wishes, cultural needs and what was important to them. Reviews were carried out regularly to ensure care plans remained up to date, especially when there were changes in people’s conditions or circumstances.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important to them. They used assessment and monitoring tools to support the delivery of care in line with recognised guidance. Tools were actively used and embedded within the care planning system to help guide staff in delivering safe and effective care. Various professionals visited the service to provide support to people, including GP’s and speech and language therapists (SALT). Care plans were detailed and included advice and treatment from professionals.

People's nutrition, hydration, dietary and cultural needs were met. People had mixed views about the food served and choice of menus on offer within the service. Some people told us they enjoyed the food while others said the food was not always good and there was not enough choice. Comments included, “The food is not always good, there isn’t much choice”, “I enjoy the food, there is a choice”, “Everything is good here apart from the food, it could be better”, and “The food is ok, some menus are nicer than others.” We drew this to the home managers attention. They told us people had feedback to them and the chef on menus and foods they would like. They showed us menu lists which staff complete daily with people recording their meal choices for the following day. Menus displayed included pictures to aid choice. We saw there were at least 4 menu choices every day for every meal served. The home manager told us they had also recently introduced condiments to all tables which included things like ketchup, mustard, pickles, and chutney to enhance taste. The home manager told us a new chef was due to start soon, and they were excited to work with them on improving the menus.

We observed how people were supported at lunch time in the dining room and conservatory. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. People were offered choices from set menus and were offered a wide range of drinks including wine, tea and juices. There were enough staff to assist people, and we saw positive interactions between people and staff. We visited the kitchen and spoke with the chef. They were very knowledgeable about people’s preferences and specialised dietary requirements. Information was displayed detailing people’s individual requirements and any SALT recommendations. The kitchen appeared clean and well organised, with fresh food deliveries made daily and weekly. We saw that the service had received a 5 rating from the Food Standards Agency in August 2025.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. There were systems in place to support and enhance better staff communication. Regular meetings were held including daily staff meetings where information was shared across the staffing team. Staff communicated and worked effectively with other professionals. These included the local authority, GP’s, community mental health teams, palliative care teams and dietitians amongst others. We spoke with 3 visiting health professionals. They all told us staff were proactive in the management of risk, and staff recognised deterioration in people quickly following safety and recovery measures being put in place. They also commented that staff respected and treated people well. One commented, “I visit the service regularly. Staff are always very helpful, and they provide good care to people.”

Staff supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and future support needs. People told us they had access to health care professional when they needed them. Comments included, “I have regular access to the GP and other professionals”, and “Staff are very responsive, they [staff] are quick to respond to any health changes or deterioration.”

People were supported to access a range of health and social care professionals when required to support their physical and emotional wellbeing. Care plans and records documented how best people should be supported and staff monitored people’s conditions and health needs on a regular basis acting if people became unwell. Care records confirmed that people were seen by professionals such as GPs and other relevant health care service when needed.

Staff monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they fully met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. Staff were dedicated to ensuring people received good outcomes. Nursing staff were knowledgeable and were able to provide examples of how they used clinical tools and practice to detect and recognise deterioration in individuals. For example, treating underlying health problems like infections in the management of falls. Staff involved people in planning their care and support to ensure it reflected their preferences and needs. Care plans were reviewed on a regular basis to capture any changes in people’s needs and risks. Daily records were maintained by staff to monitor people’s wellbeing and managers monitored care records to ensure care was provided appropriately and safely.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these. People told us staff were respectful and always sought their consent.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control over their daily lives. When people lacked the mental capacity to make decisions, the provider met with relatives where appropriate to ensure any decisions made, were in the person’s best interests. Staff promoted people's rights and worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The MCA provides a legal framework for making decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. The provider had requested legal authorisations where restrictions were in place. Any conditions in place were reviewed by staff and met.