Silverpoint Court Residential 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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 63 (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 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.

Some care plans we reviewed had inconsistencies around peoples’ health needs, however; the provider was in the process of fully reviewing and updating all care plans and risk assessments. This meant there were still some people whose information was not always fully up to date. Feedback we received was mixed about people and their relatives being kept up to date with any changes to the person’s needs. Comments we received included, “We get very little update from them [provider]” and “We have no details of [relatives] care plan.”

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. We found that we could not be sure how often care plans and risk assessments were being reviewed and updated on a regular basis, despite some people having complex health conditions.

Feedback was mixed from staff, people and their relatives around being kept up to date with any changes in people’s health care needs. Comments included, “We are always informed if there are any changes in people care plans” and “I did see a care plan when [relative] first moved in but not since then it must be over a year.”

The provider was in the process of reviewing and updating all care records. Care plans we reviewed that had recently been completed were well detailed and person centred. However, the provider/management? was still in the process of reviewing all people’s care records.

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.

Feedback we received from professionals was positive around communication and the provider seeking external healthcare support promptly. Comments included,” If the home have any worries about residents, they will contact the team quickly.” One healthcare professional also told us the provider is always accommodating with changing visiting times and days if required.

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 had access to external healthcare professionals such as GPs and district nurses. During our onsite inspection we observed several external healthcare visiting the home and feedback we received from them was positive.

We observed in the kitchen that people’s dietary requirements were clearly documented and the staff we spoke to in the kitchen had good awareness of peoples’ individual needs such as diabetes and modified diets.

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.

During our onsite inspection people were observed to be seated in the communal areas for extended periods of time with a lack of interaction from staff. However, people did engage with activities when these were offered to them. Feedback from people and their relatives raised concerns around interactions from staff. One relative told us, “[Relative] does join in activities when taken up there but on ground floor feel they get forgotten some days, they seem to have a lot going on there.” The provider has recently recruited a new activities lead and the home has been supported by the head of recreational wellbeing to help drive improvement to the activities offered and peoples experience.

Feedback we received from people indicated the service worked in partnership with external agencies and referrals were being made when required.

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

The provider had completed Mental Capacity Assessments and was currently in the process of reviewing and updating people’s care plans including capacity assessments. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making decisions on behalf of people who may lack the capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that as far as possible; people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack capacity, any decisions made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. Mental capacity assessments we reviewed showed who had been involved in the assessment process. The provider had recently made changes to their review process for capacity assessments to ensure it was always clear when assessments had been completed and when they were due for review.

We observed people being offered choices and staff sought consent from people prior to supporting people, during our onsite inspection.

Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).