Somerleigh Court

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 inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained 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.

People’s needs were assessed pre-admission, and then at regular intervals through their time at Somerleigh Court. Assessments were detailed and used to develop person-centred care plans. Feedback from people’s relatives was mixed about the assessment and care planning processes and how well these were communicated with them.

One relative told us, “The assessment process was phenomenal. Professional and very reassuring and left us feeling that it was the only place for [person] at the time (18 months ago).” A second relative said, “This year, [deputy manager] visited us at home to discuss their needs. It was very thorough and I felt they were going to the right home.”
Other relatives had less positive experiences telling us, “We had the full assessment in when [person] first went there. It was very professional, but I have since found that communication is not their strong point.” And “I have never seen a care plan, nor had a review. I had to ask [registered nurse] and they spent time going through it with me. I felt reassured.”

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 used information from healthcare professionals to inform care plans, including from speech and language therapists (SaLT) when people experienced swallowing difficulties, and from community mental healthcare professionals in supporting people with dementia.

Assessment tools to monitor skin integrity, falls and weight loss were also used to help ensure people received the right care to maintain their health and wellbeing.

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 across all 3 floors in the care home and feedback from people’s relatives indicated staff knew people well. Information was shared between staff through meetings, handovers and the electronic care record.

Health and social care professionals told us the provider had developed positive working relationships with them to ensure people had seamless care.

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 provider maintained regular records of observations of people. These included weight, blood oxygen levels, respirations, and blood pressure. If there were readings outside of the expected range appropriate medical assistance was arranged.

People were encouraged to retain skills of daily living. For example, when receiving personal care, staff would encourage people to wash the areas they could still manage and supported them with aspects they struggled with. This meant people retained some independence and control.

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.

The provider had introduced a ‘resident of the day’ program which helped to ensure records, care plans and assessments were reviewed on a specific day each month. Some relatives told us they had not always felt involved with peoples care planning. They had raised this with the provider and stated it had improved since. A relative said, “I had a care plan review with someone earlier this year when we went over everything. That really helped.”

Aspects of people’s health were monitored as were people’s responses when new medicines were given or if they experience a fall.

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

Mental capacity assessments were not always completed in line with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). They had not always been signed by people with the authority to do so. For example, on 2 records we saw a registered nurse had signed a best interest decision when there was a relative who held a lasting power of attorney, who should have been included in the decision making.
We spoke with the manager about our concerns around consent and MCA assessments and decisions. They told us this had been identified and the deputy manager was working to update all consent forms, add those that were missing and to ensure all documentation was in place.