Acacia Bank 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 Inadequate. 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 was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People were actively involved in the assessment process, with support provided where needed to maximise their participation. This helped ensure that care was tailored to individual preferences and abilities.

People told us they felt confident their needs had been properly assessed and were well understood by staff. Relatives also confirmed they were involved in discussions and decision-making about their loved one’s care.

Assessments were detailed and person-centred, and we saw evidence that people’s needs were regularly reviewed to reflect any changes in their health or circumstances. This helped ensure care remained appropriate and responsive over time.

Overall, the service demonstrated a strong commitment to involving people in their care and ensuring their needs were consistently understood and met.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment 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.

People were informed about good practice relevant to their needs and were involved in how this was reflected in their individual care plans. This helped ensure care was person-centred and aligned with the latest evidence. Clinical assessment tools were in place and used appropriately to support people’s health and wellbeing. This helped ensure people received care that was tailored to their individual health needs.

People’s nutritional and hydration needs were assessed and met in line with current guidance. Staff understood how to support individuals with a range of dietary needs and preferences, promoting health and wellbeing. We observed that people were offered a good provision of food and drink, with choices provided in a person-centred manner. Staff took time to understand and accommodate people’s preferences, ensuring meals and refreshments met their individual tastes and dietary requirements. This contributed to people receiving care and support that promoted their health, comfort, and wellbeing.

Care and support were delivered in a way that reflected up-to-date knowledge and standards, helping people to achieve the best possible outcomes.

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 told us communication between leaders and care staff was effective and helped them to carry out their roles well. Staff described handovers as a valuable tool for sharing important information and updates about people’s care and wellbeing.

We saw evidence of regular handovers and staff meeting minutes, which demonstrated that good practice, service updates, and learning were routinely shared. This supported a consistent and informed approach to delivering care.

We also saw evidence of positive partnership working with other professionals, including ambulance staff, GPs, and district nurses. This collaborative approach helped ensure people received coordinated and responsive care to meet their needs.

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 were supported to have choice and control over their daily lives. They had access to a range of activities, services, and outdoor spaces, including the garden, which promoted both their physical and emotional wellbeing.

We saw people engaging in activities of their choosing and making use of the facilities available to them. These opportunities contributed positively to people’s health, independence, and overall quality of life.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were monitored for effectiveness.

Care plans and clinical monitoring tools were regularly reviewed to ensure they reflected people’s current needs. People were involved in discussions about their care and treatment and had opportunities to contribute to the planning and review of their support. Where required, referrals were made to other healthcare professionals to help ensure people received appropriate and timely care.

Good standards of record keeping were in place, particularly in relation to personal care and elimination needs. Records were clear, accurate, and regularly updated.

However, further work was needed to ensure staff had access to all of the specific guidance necessary to provide consistently safe care. In particular, improvements were required in the clarity and detail of protocols for the administration of ‘as required’ (PRN) medications, including clear instructions on correct dosages to ensure safe and effective use and in the recording of effectiveness of the medicine.

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

People’s rights under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) were respected. Consent was clearly recorded in people’s care files as part of the admission process. People and their relatives told us they had been involved in discussions and decisions about their care, and that their views and wishes were listened to and respected.

We observed staff consistently offering people choices and seeking consent before providing any care or support. This demonstrated staff’s understanding of the principles of the MCA and their commitment to promoting people’s autonomy and independence in day-to-day care.