Regent 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 the same. 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 assessed people’s care and treatment reviewed their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them, however, we identified not all information was accurate. There was evidence, where appropriate, people and relatives were involved in changes to people’s care planning. This was reviewed on a regular basis or when people’s needs changed. One relative told us, “Staff ring me once a week to say how things are going, if there are any health-related concerns. Every week they ring me for some reason, and we have a chat with carers when we come in”.

Information had been gathered during the pre-admission assessment which included a person’s current situation, health and wellbeing, skin assessment and risk, continence needs, mobility and fall risk, medication, memory and understanding, personal safety. This information formed people’s care plans. Where people had additional clinical needs, risk assessments were in place to guide staff on what support and actions may need to be taken, although some of these required further detail.

Daily meetings were held with leaders of the service to share people’s changes in care delivery or any concerns in their health and wellbeing.

Where required, healthcare professionals were involved in assessing needs and providing guidance in line with best practice. A healthcare professional told us, “They do follow the guidance. They contact us if dressings come off, they are good with sending photographs too”.

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. The provider was using nationally recognised tools to assess and monitor risk. For example, the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) where people were at risk of weight loss. Some people required modified diets which has been assessed by Speech and Language Therapists (SALT). Records showed inconsistencies with some peoples recommended modified diets. We shared examples with managers of where documentation showed people had been given foods which were not part of their modified diet which posed a risk of choking. Prompt action was taken to provide staff with further information on what foods were safe for people to eat as part of their recommended plans. We asked managers to review all people on modified diets to ensure staff had the required knowledge to support people to eat safely. However, people told us they enjoyed the food at the service, comments included, “It’s a lovely breakfast. Nice meals here.” and “I clear my plate every time, I like pudding”.

Some care planning guidance did not always reflect the care which was being delivered to people or follow current best practice. For example, whilst we saw no impact to people, documentation evidenced some people were not repositioned in line with their assessed needs, which could put them at risk of developing pressure sores. We saw people had a good choice of food and fluids offered. However, fluids were not consistently documented. All fluid records reviewed during the inspection had inconsistencies and some people had not met their fluid targets. We shared our findings with managers who told us this was a recording issue, and they would support staff to make the required improvements.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. People were supported by staff who worked collaboratively with other healthcare professionals and external visitors. People had access to external healthcare professionals, and care plans evidenced the relevant referrals had been made where required. Despite some concerns which were shared with us prior to our inspection, visiting healthcare professional’s spoke positively about the service and the communication between teams. One healthcare professional told us, “Normally I see the team leaders. Staff are knowledgeable about people; they are very efficient I have no concerns. If requested, they come straight back to us with more information. If I had any concerns I would speak with home manager, they would respond and I feel confident action would be taken”. Daily handovers and communication systems ensured important information was shared, this included both current and historical information which may still require monitoring.

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, improve health outcomes. People had access to regular healthcare professionals, these included the GP, district nurse, speech and language therapists, dental access and physiotherapists. The service liaised with local GP services who visited the service regularly to review people’s healthcare needs. The service held regular movement groups to support people’s strength and mobility, we also saw evidence of where people had 1-1 exercise and physiotherapy sessions to re-build strength, balance and confidence.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. Care plans contained information about people’s health and wellbeing and were regularly reviewed. We identified where people’s daily care interventions were recorded, this was not always consistently completed. For example, with repositioning charts and fluid charts. Although there was no impact to people, we could not always be assured people were repositioned as per the guidance in their care plans or received their targeted fluid amounts. Staff demonstrated good knowledge of when people’s presenting needs changed which could indicate a deterioration in their health or wellbeing. Concerns were escalated appropriately and shared with external health professionals and during staff handovers to ensure a consistent care approach and timely intervention.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. The provider was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty (DOLS). People were supported to make choices and have control over their lives. Staff worked in the least restrictive way and acted in people’s best interests, although some documentation supporting this could be strengthened. We observed staff talking with people and involving them with what they were doing. Managers maintained a DoLS tracker where it was evidenced referrals had been made to the local authority. Managers monitored when people’s assessments and DoLS needed reviewing.