Pendlebury Court 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 remained requires improvement.

This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 50 (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 worked effectively with external healthcare professionals to assess and review people's needs. However, information and recommendations from external agencies had not always been incorporated into people's care plans in a timely manner, and care plans were not consistently reviewed. This meant records did not always reflect people's current needs and the provider could not be assured staff were always working from accurate and up-to-date information. Effective systems were in place to assess prospective admissions, ensuring the service could meet people’s needs and that potential admissions were considered alongside the needs of people already using the service.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. People’s needs had been assessed, and care plans were in place, however we found gaps in care planning and monitoring records. Several people did not have oral hygiene care plans in place despite requiring support with oral health, and personal hygiene records contained gaps. This meant there was not always clear information to guide staff in delivering consistent care and treatment, or assurance that people had received care in line with their assessed needs.

Staff and teams did not always work together effectively to identify and respond to people’s needs. We observed occasions where people’s needs went unnoticed until we alerted staff to them. This meant people did not always receive support in a timely manner and demonstrated that staff were not consistently working together to maintain oversight of people’s wellbeing and support needs. Staff worked effectively with external health and social care professionals, and people received regular input from external agencies to support identified needs, including choking risks and weight loss. However, information and recommendations provided by these professionals were not always incorporated into people's care plans in a timely manner this meant care records did not always reflect people's current needs and staff may not have had access to the most up to date information required to deliver care in line with professional recommendations.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. We found several people did not have care plans in place to guide staff in supporting their oral hygiene needs. In addition, care records were not always updated to reflect the most recent advice and guidance provided by healthcare professionals involved in people's care. This meant staff did not always have access to accurate and up-to-date information to support people's health and wellbeing, which increased the risk of inconsistent care and support and reduced the provider's assurance that people's identified needs would be met.

People had access to a range of healthcare professionals when required. Records demonstrated input from external agencies, including support relating to identified health needs. Staff recognised when people required additional support and made appropriate referrals to healthcare services. People were also supported to access their local area, helping to promote their wellbeing and maintain connections with the local area.

The provider did not always have effective systems in place to monitor and improve outcomes for people and they did not. always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent. We identified gaps in care records, including personal care, oral health and care planning documentation. Care plans were not always updated to reflect people's current needs or the most recent advice from healthcare professionals. This meant it was not always possible to demonstrate that people's care was delivered consistently in line with their assessed needs, or that outcomes were being effectively monitored and reviewed.

People were supported to identify and work towards goals that were important to them. For example, some people were supported to reduce the amount of prescribed medicines they took, and to access the community. However, the provider's recording and oversight systems were not always effective in capturing, monitoring and reviewing people's progress and changing needs. This meant the provider could not always be assured that care and support remained aligned with current needs, or that opportunities to improve outcomes for people had been consistently identified and acted upon.

The provider informed people of their rights in relation to consent; however, this was not always reflected in staff practice. People had mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions in place where required, and these had been completed in line with recognised guidance and best practice. Staff had received training on the Mental Capacity Act 2005, but this learning was not consistently applied when providing care and support. We observed instances where staff carried out care and support tasks without first seeking people's consent or explaining what they were doing. This meant people were not always supported to be involved in decisions about their care, which risked undermining their choice, control and autonomy.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives.