Camellia House

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.

This service scored 58 (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.

People’s needs were assessed before admission to Camellia House to ensure their needs could be met. Assessments were regularly reviewed, and support plans were updated to reflect any changes in a person’s needs, wishes or personal goals. Relatives and others who were important in people’s lives were included in the assessment process.

People living at Camellia House had a detailed life history, meaning that those supporting them knew them well. Dietary preferences were in care plans so that people’s likes and dislikes could be respected.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

They used clinicaltoolsto assesspeople’sriskofdevelopinghealth needs such as pressureulcers. However, best practice was not always followed. For example, the provider recorded people’s daily fluid intake, however one person was known to drink a lot of fluids in the evening. There was no information regarding fluid targets and when, how, or who to escalate concerns to.

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.

We found communication with healthcare professionals was documented in people’s care plans. This meant that staff could see any professional visitors that had been, or any changes that had been implemented by health care partners.

People who used the service told us they had confidence that staff would liaise with external professionals when needed. One person told us, “When I first came, I couldn’t walk. The [registered manager] said they would do all they can to help me walk again. Staff followed the physio plan and got me walking again. I cannot thank them enough.”

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’s communication needs were documented and understood by staff. This allowed staff to communicate with people, and to have a clear understanding of the person’s needs. Staff knew people well and were able to quickly identify if people may be experiencing any new health or wellbeing issues. Records showed staff acted in a timely manner to address concerns.

A hairdresser attended regularly, and it was documented in people’s care plans if they liked to have their hair done.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were robustly recorded to enable effective monitoring. For example, daily logs were completed at 3 points throughout the day, rather than being contemporaneously completed. This meant that if an emergency was to occur, specific times would not be able to be recalled in daily notes. We also found that daily sheets were prepopulated with times for when fluids, meals or toileting took place. This again meant that documentation was not contemporaneous.

We also found that fluids consumed were being documented, but the meals and how much was eaten had not. This means that it would be difficult to monitor and share with other professionals if needed. People did not have fluid targets in their care plans which would support staff to encourage suitable fluid intake. This meant that people could be at risk of drinking too little, or too much which may also impact the effectiveness of their medication. Following our feedback to the provider, they reached out to professionals to help with fluid targets. They also provided evidence of an updated daily log which was more specific and had removed prepopulated timings.

The provider respected people’s rights when delivering care and treatment, however the documentation in relation to capacity assessments and best interest decisions needed to be developed further.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of respecting people’s wishes and decisions. This included when a person lacked mental capacity.

Consent was sought in a way that respected each person’s communication needs, using approaches to ensure understanding and participation. Where individuals had capacity, staff engaged them in meaningful discussions about their care, promoting autonomy and choice. People told us that staff were always respectful and asked for permission to support them with their care needs.