Dean 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 remained 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.

People’s care and support needs were assessed before they came to live at Dean House. People and their families were involved. One person said, “I was involved, but I don’t really remember, it was a long time ago.” Pre-admission forms were completed which identified people’s needs and how these would be met. The manager said, “I have an assessment form. I would call the hospital or where the person is, do a pre-assessment to ensure we can meet their needs, go through the support plan that is sent over. We have had a few people stay on respite and who end up living here.”

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and support 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.

Various assessing and monitoring tools were used to support staff to meet people’s identified needs. For example, the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) identified people’s risk of malnourishment or issues with their weight. People’s risk of developing pressure areas was assessed and district nurses visited and assisted with wound management. People’s risks were regularly reviewed and monitored, with staff able to access up‑to‑date care plans on electronic hand‑held devices to support safe and consistent care.

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 home worked with a variety of health and social care professionals. However, there were ongoing issues with the local medical practice and delays in obtaining some people’s prescriptions. The management team frequently had to chase these up, and occasionally people went without their medicines. This had no impact on their health, but was an issue which the manager had tried hard to address.

People who required wound management for their skin integrity and people with diabetes were supported by district nurses who regularly visited the home.

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.

A range of healthcare professionals were involved in supporting people at Dean House. One person said, “The physio is very good. I attempt to walk from my room to the sitting room, and the physio follows me with the wheelchair. If I get there, fine, if not, there’s the wheelchair.” When people became unwell or there were queries about their health, staff contacted the local medical practice for support. A paramedic practitioner made weekly calls and occasional face to face visits as needed. They told us, “The staff work well as a team, communicating clearly and making a positive difference.”

We asked people whether they had a choice of what to eat at mealtimes and about the quality of food on offer. One person said, “It’s pretty good. There’s not a lot of it. It’s ordinary, but good to eat.” We observed people having their lunchtime meal. Tables were nicely laid out, and there was a choice of menu. People’s dietary needs, including modified diets, were catered for.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and support 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 home strived to achieve good outcomes through the care and support people received. One person said, “They watch what I’m eating. If I don’t eat much, they start to worry and a senior will come to ask, ‘what’s up?’. They’re very thoughtful like that.” The manager told us, “We ensure we meet all people’s needs. Staff have the care plans on the electronic system, so they can read them. For example, for people who need hoisting, staff can read what sling is to be used, to ensure people are safe.”

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

We observed staff routinely asked people for their consent before any kind of intervention was undertaken. People told us they made everyday choices, for example, when they got up or went to bed. One person said, “Sometimes I have to wait when I want to go to bed. In the morning I’m up with the lark. It’s the night shift I meet. They get me up at 5.00am. That’s not because they want me up at that time, that’s the time I’m awake and I want to get up.”

Staff completed training on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and demonstrated their understanding of this legislation with regard to consent. One staff member said, “You should always assume people have capacity and people are allowed to make unwise decisions. If someone does lack capacity, you have to work in their best interests and what is best to do.”