St Dominics 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.

People’s needs were assessed prior to them moving into the service. People and their relatives told us they were involved in the assessment and care planning process. One relative said, “We’ve had loads of input into the care plan”. Another relative told us, “We were involved in the plans, and a review after the first month to see if [person] wants to stay.”

The provider’s assessments of people’s needs considered their individual preferences for support. However, not all information in relation to the management of risk was clearly assessed and documented. The provider confirmed they were reviewing and amending their electronic care planning system to ensure all information relating to assessing risk was clearly recorded.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and support 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 had access to a range of policies and procedures to support good practice. The provider had organised their policies to reflect the CQC key questions. This meant it was easy for staff to find relevant information to support them in providing care in line with CQC regulations.

People and relatives spoke positively about the variety and quality of food and drink available. Comments included, “The food is very good”, “The food is lovely and you get a choice” and “The food was the best thing. It wasn’t just pub food, it was proper food, the kitchen is spotless and it was lovely to have lovely food cooked for me.”

The provider had made appropriate referrals to relevant health professionals to support people’s eating and drinking needs. However, we found information relating to people’s nutritional support needs was not consistent or up to date. This meant staff did not always have appropriate guidelines in place about how to support people safely. The provider responded promptly following our feedback to confirm all information and guidelines had been reviewed and updated where necessary. During the inspection we observed staff supporting people appropriately with their eating and drinking needs.

The provider worked with other healthcare professionals to provide consistency when supporting people to access different health services. Staff worked collaboratively with other professionals involved in people’s care to ensure people’s needs were met. One healthcare professional told us, “Communication is open, honest and transparent between St Dominics and ourselves.”

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 clear information about how to promote their decision-making in relation to their health and wellbeing. People’s changing needs were identified promptly and appropriate referrals made to ensure people’s needs continued to be met appropriately. Details about the health professionals involved in people’s care were included in their care plans along with how to contact them.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and support to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. People and their relatives were involved in discussions and encouraged to give feedback. Relatives told us people’s health and wellbeing had improved and they had experienced positive outcomes due to the care provided. One relative said, “[Person] did not want to go into a care home, but now say they are very happy and feel privileged that they are in such a lovely place. [Person] has a second wind and is doing really well.”

People’s care plans provided personalised and detailed information about how to offer choice and promote their decision making in their day to day care. However, where people lacked capacity to make a specific decision, assessments were not always in place to evidence how decisions had been made in their best interests. The provider told us this was due to the transfer of information to their electronic care planning system. However, they were not always able to evidence how assessment documentation had been completed previously. Despite these concerns, people told us they were offered choice in their care. During the inspection, we observed staff offering people choices and asking for their consent prior to providing support.