St Margarets 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 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 75 (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.

The service aimed to complete an assessment of people’s needs before they moved in. Where this was not possible there were systems to promptly identify and assess people’s needs when they arrived in the service. Care plans were developed from information gathered during the assessment process in combination with staff observations in the initial days of providing support.

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’s care plans now accurately reflected their current support needs and provided staff with sufficient guidance to enable them to meet those needs. Risks had been identified and mitigated, and support was provided with compassion.

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 had developed supportive and effective relationships with local health and social care professionals which ensured people’s health needs were met. Professionals told us, “Communication is very good, things are followed up” and “I would say, the staff are very good, very caring”. Information was shared appropriately to ensure people’s support and communication needs were understood in the event a person was admitted to hospital.

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 said, “We have regular meetings with the cooks and everyone involved in kitchen, even the tea lady” and staff told us they had recently held a meeting with people to review the menu to ensure it reflected people’s current preferences. Kitchen staff told us they, “recently trialled liver, bacon and onions, went down really well so will be putting on the menu”. Kitchen staff had a good understanding of the risks associated with meals and food was presented appropriately.

Relatives were complementary of the food served and said, “Seems very welcoming, we can come when we want, we have eaten with [My relative]. The food is very good”.

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 both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The provider had introduced additional systems to ensure people’s care needs were regularly reviewed and care plans updated accurately reflected people’s current needs. Some tasks previously completed by the registered manager had been delegated to team leaders and the clinical lead which meant the registered manager had more time to focus on leading the service and driving improvements in performance. Staff told us team leaders had taken on more responsibilities and commented, “One of the seniors checks the daily records twice a week”.

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

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

The provider’s systems to ensure people’s rights were protected had been reviewed and updated since the last assessment and people’s capacity to make specific decisions was appropriately assessed. Where people lacked the capacity to make specific decisions they were consistently made in the person’s best interests. Necessary DoLS applications had been made and associated recommendations acted upon.

Staff consistently sought people’s consent before providing support and respected people’s decisions and choices. Staff comments included, “People can decide to stay up if they want, we don’t force people to go to bed”.