Archived: Southlands Nursing 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 changed to requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to consent to care and treatment.

This service scored 54 (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.

Assessments of people's needs had been carried out prior to people using the service and involved the person and, where appropriate, their relatives, to ensure the service was able to meet the person's needs including their communication needs and preferences.
 

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

Care plans and related records showed consideration and reflection of current legislation and best practice guidance. We identified nationally recognised assessment tools were being used to assess and monitor people’s needs such as for skin integrity and risk of malnutrition. The service used technology to aid people’s support such as call bell systems and sensor mats.

However, there was no effective monitoring of people’s hydration needs, including actions to take when a person’s fluid intake was inadequate. We reviewed the fluid records for a 28-day period from 21 July to 17 August 2025 and identified that people were not always being offered and provided with enough drinks based on their assessed need. There were no detailed records providing guidance to staff about the risks of dehydration.

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.

The service worked with other healthcare professionals to support people. We saw evidence of working in partnership with other services such as referrals being made for additional support.

We saw evidence which indicated people living in the service had access to other health care professionals, such as GPs and chiropodists. People told us that generally their healthcare needs were met and could see medical professionals if needed. A relative said, “Yes, [loved one] sees the doctor”, and “[Loved one] has seen a doctor for their chest”.

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.

Although people's health needs were identified, such as those who had diabetes, there was little information about what could be done to best support them to manage this through their lifestyle, such as diet and activity.

We reviewed the records for a person with a diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome, however, this lacked guidance about the management of the condition in particular, diet and lifestyle adjustments, any identified triggers and when to increase or decrease fibre intake based on symptoms.

We received mixed feedback in relation to the meals. People and relatives told us that the food was good when the regular chef was working however, others felt it was not as good when agency staff were used. Comments included, “The chef and the permanent staff are brilliant, but the meals are on the small side when the agency staff are on. The regular chef, she knows what you like” and “It varies, depending on who’s doing it. Some of the agency cooks are appalling. With the proper chef, the food is ok”.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment however, 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 found monitoring records to support people's everyday needs were not always consistently completed. For example, some people required support to reposition to maintain or improve their skin health, records showed that support was not always provided in line with guidance in their care plans. This increased the risk of people developing skin damage and meant staff did not have necessary information to consistently meet people’s needs and clinical expectations.

The provider did not tell people about their rights around consent or respect these when delivering care and treatment.

The provider failed to ensure the correct procedure was followed in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 provides a legal framework for supporting people who may lack the ability to make certain decisions for themselves.

Although staff supported people with day-to-day decisions, mental capacity assessments were not completed in line with the requirements. Where capacity assessments had been carried out, records did not demonstrate how people were supported to be involved in making decisions and some assessments lacked sufficient detail.

Best interest decisions that had been made did not always demonstrate that these decisions involved family members or relevant professionals, as required by the MCA. This meant the principles of the Act were not always fully followed.

Mental capacity assessments had not been carried out when specific decisions needed to be made, such as, receiving regular welfare checks, modification to diets and having photographs taken.

Mental capacity training had not been completed by all staff, including those who had completed Mental capacity assessments for people. Out of 25 staff who deliver care, there were 20 staff who did not have mental capacity training in place.