Magnolia 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 was regularly reviewed alongside them and their representatives to ensure it continued to meet their physical and social needs. This was undertaken through a system of monthly key worker meetings where people would sit down with staff and review their care, including any things they would like to achieve. If people’s needs changed then their care plans were updated, and this information was shared with staff to ensure they knew how to support people in line with their needs and preferences. One staff member told us, “I do have time to read people’s care plans regularly, and we have written handovers daily. Staff meetings take place each month discuss each people’s needs. These are really good”. Relatives confirmed they were involved in people’s care reviews where appropriate and one relative confirmed, “Yes. We will go to their reviews when they have one”.

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.

Leaders had a strong knowledge of best practice guidance for people with a learning disability and autistic people, including RSRCRC and STOMP. They had embedded this within practice which supported people to have empowered and positive lives where choice was promoted. Where people had complex health and care conditions, there was robust and detailed guidance in place of how to support these. This guidance was personalised around how each person experienced that condition and designed alongside relevant health and care professionals.

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.

Staff worked closely together to ensure people received care that was of a consistent high quality and met people’s needs. They were knowledgeable about how to support people safely and worked well with other professionals involved in their care. One stakeholder told us, “All recommendations I make have been implemented promptly and it seems that all staff are made aware of changes in the care plan. When I call Magnolia house they are organised, have information ready to hand”.

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.

Staff worked with people to support them in living active and healthy lives. This included promoting regular physical activity and healthy eating. Staff used national tools such as the Healthy Eating Plate to help people plans their own balanced menus for the week, including those with a diagnosis of diabetes where this was especially important. Low sugar options and healthy snacks such as fruit were readily available to people and encouraged.

People were supported to access regular health appointments and had their own health action plans setting out how staff would work with them to support their ongoing wellbeing. This included supporting people to attend annual health checks and medication reviews. One professional involved in people’s care told us, “Residents are up to date on all checks and the staff endeavour to get help when any residents are unwell”.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment 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.

There were robust systems to monitor people’s wellbeing and their experience of care. This allowed prompt referrals to be made to seek specialist advice if their health changed or deteriorated. For example, people were regularly weighed, and referrals made when people lost weight in a way that was unexplained. This allowed concerns to be explored and strategies put in place to encourage people to eat and return to a healthy weight, such as through prescribed products or trying different textures and tastes.

Where “as and when” medications were being given, the outcomes of these were being monitored to determine if they were proving effective. For example, laxatives to manage the risk of constipation which is higher in individuals with a learning disability who are less likely to be able to recognise or communicate their symptoms.

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

Staff were knowledgeable about the principles of consent, and we observed these were being followed during our inspection and from reviewing records of care. For example, some people would decline to undertake their own personal care. Whilst staff respected their right to do so, there were also strategies in place to encourage them to maintain their personal hygiene and the importance of doing so, which supported people to maintain their dignity and respect.

Where people lacked the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves, the service worked alongside people’s next of kin and other health and care professionals to make a best interest decisions on their behalf. These were regularly reviewed to ensure they remained appropriate. One person’s representative told us, “Where relatives cannot attend because they live a long way away, they are still able to participate by joining these meetings virtually”.