The Wells 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (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.

Before people came to the home the registered manager completed a pre- admission assessment to ensure the home could meet their needs. The registered manager told us; it was important that people were assessed to ensure staff had the skills needed to support them.

Staff told us they got to know people’s support needs by being informed in handovers, reading the information on the provider’s electronic care recording system and speaking with people and their families.

People’s relatives told us they had been involved during the pre-assessment process, and they had been invited to take part in care plan reviews.

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.

People’s nutrition and hydration needs were identified and met. A monthly meeting was held to discuss any concerns regarding people’s weights, dietary needs, likes and dislikes and changes needed to the menu.

The kitchen team had clear information about people’s dietary needs. People chose what they wanted to eat and drink. People when needed, received support with their meals and drinks. We observed a pleasant dining experience during our visits. However, most people in the dining room were having their drinks in glasses and when they were in the lounge or their rooms they were observed using plastic beakers. We discussed this with the registered manager who advised us they would review people’s assessed needs and ensure staff were following their care plans.

People told us they were happy with the food at the home and could have alternatives if they wanted. Comments from people and a relative included, “The food is lovely, 1 of the Chefs came round and asked me what I would like for breakfast, it was changed immediately, the next day” and “The food is very good, I come in and have Sunday roast with (resident).”

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 had access to people’s care and support plans to understand people’s needs and deliver their care. The registered manager said they had a good working relationship with the 2 GP surgeries supporting the home. Health professionals told us the staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs.

Staff described the processes in place to ensure essential information was shared. This included daily handovers between shifts to ensure staff had up to date information about peoples care and support needs and any changes to health. The registered manager told us, that heads of departments joined the morning handover, so they were informed about any changes. People’s relatives told us the staff team always kept them informed about any healthcare appointments.

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.

The registered manager, told us how they accessed additional support from healthcare professionals to help people manage people’s health, should this be required. They also told us about how they had worked with staff to change the culture at the home to improve people’s independence and choice. They gave an example about needing to get an additional dining table as people were using the dining room for meals.

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.

Pressure relieving equipment we looked at was set correctly and a nationally recognised tool was used to assess people’s risk of skin damage. Repositioning charts were in place and had been completed for people requiring support in line with care plan guidance.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

People told us and we observed, staff ask people for their consent and offer choices.

Mental capacity assessments had been carried out in line with legislation. For example, people had their mental capacity assessed in relation to consenting to live at the service and to have bed rails in use. People who were at risk from others and of leaving the home had sensor mats in place to alert staff so they could support them with their care. We discussed that there had been improvements since the last assessment. However, further improvements were needed to ensure MCA assessments and best interest decisions provided more detail. In particular about who had been involved and that any DoLS conditions were clearly recorded in people’s care records so staff were advised. The general manager added an action to the service improvement plan to complete this information.