Mulgrave House 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. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated 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, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Peoples care plans were accurate and reviewed regularly with physical, health, well-being and communications needs met. Relatives were in involved in people’s care planning when people needed support to make decisions. One relative told us, “I know about the care plan, they do keep me informed. If there is anything I need to know, we talk about it”

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. Records showed nationally recognised tools and guidance were in use when planning and delivering people’s care. People’s preferences were consistently incorporated into care delivery and what mattered most to them was considered. People had enough to eat and drink and people said they enjoyed a variety of options. One person told us, “It’s very good food, I can’t fault it.” A relative told us, “They come around with a trolley with drinks biscuits and cake. They have plenty.”

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. They did not always share their assessment of people’s needs when people moved between different services.Records were completed prior to a person moving to the service. However, the provider did not always share people’s information with staff before they arrived. This meant staff did not always understand people’s needs in time to support them when they moved into the service. Staff told us, “A referral letter is there, but it’s not always correct, how they are mobilising or diet for example” and “If they could give more details I could prepare my day, sometimes they need to be more organised.”

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 health professionals when they needed them. For example, the chiropodist and GP. People’s independence was encouraged, and they had a choice regarding what they wanted to do to support their own wellbeing. People told us, “I am going out shopping today” and “I do my sudoku and puzzle books and watch TV.” Relative comments included, “They gave [Name] a passport as they had an Indian Day and Mexican Day, they had a pinata” and “There are opportunities to participate in activities and to go on outings, take part in things they enjoy.”

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. Systems and processes were not always effective in routinely monitoring people’s care and treatment. Oversight was lacking with regards to routine monitoring of medicines and the provider failed to address identified risks. For example, a medicines audit had identified the same concern relating to the late administration of morning medicines for 3 consecutive months, this had not been resolved which increased the risk of negative outcomes for people. However, people did have access to health care professionals when required. Referrals were appropriately made and people attended health appointments without delay.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.People’s capacity to consent to their care and treatment was assessed when required. People and their relatives told us staff always asked for consent when they were providing support. Where people had been assessed as lacking capacity, relatives and professionals had been involved and the service followed best interest processes. We observed a staff member with a visiting health professional asking a person for consent and giving a choice regarding which room they wanted their treatment to be delivered.