Templemore 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 using our previous methodology we rated this key question good.

At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 58 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The registered manager did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s needs were assessed prior to moving to the service. The care plans developed were basic and did not always provide sufficient guidance in line with good practice guidance in relation to managing risks such as falls and skin integrity. This was raised with the provider, and they assured us a full review of all people’s needs was underway to ensure information and instructions in the care plans were correct and consistent for staff to follow.

A person told us, their needs had been reviewed regularly to ensure the care and support in place remained appropriate. Care needs showed people were referred to specialist health care services for advice and further assessments.

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 risks were assessed using evidence-based risk screening tools. Staff were trained to provide evidence-based care but the care plans did not always have the correct guidance to support people with needs related to catheter care and hydration. Some people at risk of dehydration or had their fluid intake monitored, but the records were not always reliable. For instance, records were not always accurate, or contain and detailed the action taken when people did not have enough to drink. These concerns were raised with the provider to address.

People’s nutritional and dietary needs were identified and shared with the kitchen staff. People’s views about the choice and quality of food were mixed. A person said, “I get my meals here, I enjoy it.” However, other comments included “The food is not as we expected. I would like more variety, too many stews and casseroles” and “I like fish and chips, but they are awful here, the fish is not nice and the chips are oven chips.” We shared the feedback received with the provider to address.

Relatives told us their family member had enough to eat and drink. A relative said, “The food is good, [Person] is well nourished. There are different choices and it looks and smells nice. Gets endless cups of tea and always has a jug of juice in the room and water.”

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. They did ensure accurate assessment of people’s needs when people moved between different services.

Staff were able to explain which professionals were involved in people’s care. However, the care plans did not always include specific instructions provided by health professionals.People told us they could access health care services as required. A relative told us they were kept informed when their family member has been unwell or has been seen by the doctor. A visiting health professional said, “Staff have good understanding of the patients they look after. For example, when a referral is made to us, the senior will tell us what the concern is and provide the necessary information we need.” Staff told us communication between the staff team was good when shift was fully staffed A staff member said, “Handovers are comprehensive, I do a walk around and see everyone in their rooms, that’s when people get a chance to say what is happening.”

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 told us staff supported them to live healthier lives. A person told us “I do go to the lounge to join in with the activities; the new activity person is good.” A relative said, “The hairdresser and chiropodist go into see [Person].” Staff encouraged and supported people to maximise their independence and control. A person told us, “Today, I got up at 6.30am I came into the dining room and waited. I can go there [kitchenette] and make a cuppa.” People told us and care records confirmed staff supported them to access routine health appointments. A relative said “We take [Person] to appointments but if we can't the home will send someone with them, but there is a charge for this.”

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 received mixed views from people and their relatives about the impact of living at the service. Some people and relatives felt some aspects of the service and staff had a positive effect on the people’s quality of life and wellbeing. However, we found systems in place to monitor care interventions and improve outcomes for people was not always effective. Records had not always been completed consistently to allow clear service level oversight.For example, staff did not always record how much urine was emptied from catheter bag and where people were on restricted fluids to manage a health condition, regularly had more to drink than they needed, placing people’s health at risk. The auditing process was inconsistent and there was no record if action had been taken. We brought these concerns to the attention of the provider to address.

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

People were aware of their rights around consent and told us staff sought their consent and respected their wishes. Where people lacked capacity this was documented clearly. Relatives, with the appropriate legal authority, told us they had been involved in making best interest decisions for their family member. Records showed any conditions to deprive people of their liberty had been adhered to. Staff received training in the Mental Capacity Act and understood the importance of people’s consent. We observed staff offering people choices and checking consent before completing care tasks throughout our visit.