Heathgrove Lodge 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 changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 67 (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, but they did not always effectively assess people’s wellbeing.

People had risk assessments in place, which identified the key health risks which people faced day to day. These health needs were reviewed and monitored. However, some aspects of people’s needs were not assessed such as their cultural, diverse, and personal wellbeing needs. This had the potential to have a negative impact on some individuals, especially those who were choosing not to leave their bedrooms. Work was needed to fully unpick this in order to understand if the manager and staff needed to do more to understand these needs and take the appropriate actions. We spoke with the manager and provider about this, who took our feedback on board and started to work on this issue. They later showed us they had revisited some people’s assessment of needs, and they talked us through the work they intend to do to improve what they provide socially for people.

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.

The manager and provider had ensured people were safe and received the health care they needed. People had regular health checks and referrals when they were unwell, they had fallen and developed a pressure sore. For example, one person’s recovery from a pressure sore was well evidenced, showing staff had acted quickly and liaised regularly with the assigned health professional team until the person recovered. Another person needed mental health professional intervention. Staff reacted quickly to this change in need, seeking the appropriate help, and closely monitoring their mental health. As one person told us, “If I need to see the doctor this is not a problem and it gets sorted quickly.”

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.

The manager and provider had ensured key information about people’s physical health, mental health and care needs were assessed and recorded. When onward health referrals were made, we saw records giving full information about the support required. 2 health professionals we spoke with confirmed staff shared detailed information about people’s needs and issues, which they said enabled them to complete their assessments and create treatment plans for these people.

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.

The provider had established a good relationship with the GP surgery. This included a weekly GP visit to respond to health matters and review people’s medication. When people who were at risk of choking when eating, the appropriate referrals were made to the specialist team. Their instructions were recorded in people’s care plans and their food was prepared in line with these instructions by the cook. The provider and manager also audited this to ensure the kitchen staff were following these instructions correctly.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met the clinical expectations.

People’s physical needs were monitored and checked by the GP and District Nurses when required. When one person’s mental health needs changed staff took action to promote their physical safety. This person’s needs were regularly monitored; the manager and staff believed this person’s mental health needs had improved as a result of both their intervention and the professional’s intervention.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent.

We saw staff checking with people about a care task to ensure they were consenting to this. People’s capacity to make certain decisions were being considered and assessed by senior staff. However, when best interests decisions were being considered, these records showed other parties were not being consulted with, such as staff who knew them well, health professionals and relatives. When one person was assessed as lacking capacity best interests’ decisions were made, but these did not include their lasting power of attorney (LPA). This is when an individual has been given certain powers to help make decisions on a person’s behalf if they lack the capacity to do so. Their purpose is to help make decisions the person would have made had they not lacked the capacity to do this. Likewise, when people had LPAs, this was not confirmed by seeing and recording the awarding paperwork. These people did not have LPA care plans which outlined their powers so staff can check everyone was working within these powers. We fed this back to the manager who agreed more work was needed here to promote people’s rights and staff’s understanding with best interests processes and practices.