St Oswalds

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 people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

This is the first assessment for St Oswalds Care Home. This key question has been rated good.

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

We have not awarded this service a score for Effective.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Effective.

The provider did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective. Although people, and those close to them, were actively involved in the development of their individual assessments and reviews of their care, these plans did not comprehensively record or reflect their needs. Some people’s care plans contained generic information that did not give staff enough detail to properly support the individual. In addition, some staff had not received the training they needed to understand and manage people’s specific conditions.

We raised these concerns with the management team, and they assured us they would review the issues, update the care plans and provide the necessary training for staff.

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. For example, people had assessments associated with their mobility, skin integrity, nutritional needs and medicines. Care was planned in response to the outcomes, for example, people were given pressure relieving equipment and staff were directed to support people to reposition to prevent pressure damage.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. Procedures were established to make sure information about individuals was shared appropriately with other services when necessary. Visiting professionals provided positive feedback about how staff and managers worked with them. Their comments included, “The service has always engaged with us and shared all requested information” and “I feel confident I can raise any issues with the management team and management would follow up appropriately.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing, helping them maximise independence, choice and control. While some records required improvement, staff promoted healthier lifestyles and worked to reduce people’s future care needs where possible. They monitored specific health risks, such as weight and skin integrity, and described several instances where they had identified health improvements since people were admitted. Staff felt these positive changes were supported by having a consistent team who knew people well and had built strong, trusting relationships with them.

The provider did not consistently review people’s care frequently enough to ensure it was safe or that it was improving. This meant that people did not always get positive or consistent results, and their care did not always meet clinical standards or their own expectations. For example, staff did not properly monitor or respond to signs of low blood sugar in a person with diabetes. Their records did not include important information about why the person needed food soon after receiving insulin. Without food, insulin can cause dangerously low blood sugar, which can be life‑threatening.

We discussed this with the management team, and they assured us they would put the right measures in place to better support the individual.

The provider made sure people understood their rights around giving consent, and staff respected these rights when delivering person‑centred care. Staff always sought and recorded people’s consent to care and support. When someone needed a restriction, such as bedrails, staff completed decision‑specific Mental Capacity Act (MCA) assessments and best‑interest decisions (BI). These records clearly showed the correct steps were followed in line with the Mental Capacity Act and its Code of Practice before any restrictions were put in place.