New Victoria 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.

The service was previously in breach of legal regulation in relation to need for consent as the provider was not always working in line with the MCA. The service had made improvements in relation to following the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) guidance and is no longer in breach of this regulation.

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 assessed and reviewed people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them, and or with their family, friends or representative.

People told us they felt staff knew how to support them. We observed staff provide positive outcomes to people who required additional support.

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 we spoke to said they were involved in planning their own care. Staff promoted people’s choices and managed the risks related to individual choices. Observations, and weight records indicated people’s nutrition and hydration needs were being met and demonstrated that referrals to relevant health professionals if people’s needs required addition support.

Any changes in people’s presentations were shared with the care staff and care adapted accordingly and communicated through daily discussions with the registered manager and nurses. Records we looked at confirmed this.

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 used handheld electronic tablets to record daily tasks and diary notes. It meant they could access the information they needed to understand people’s needs, plan their care treatment and support, and share information with health professionals as required. Staff worked with families to ensure support was available to ensure continuity of 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.

Management and staff worked with relatives and healthcare professionals to ensure people had access to healthcare. Health professionals such as district nurses, therapists and advocates visited regularly to review people’s health needs.

Staff were able to tell us how they supported people with their eating and drinking and promoted choice in their dietary needs. They knew who required dignified support at mealtimes.

We received very different views on the food. One person told us, “I enjoy the meals. I don’t think about choices but there is always enough to eat; I am happy with them.” A second person told us they were served good portions however the quality was not good. We spoke with the registered manager who explained that most meals are prepared and frozen off site and are nutritionally balanced and are tailored to people’s dietary needs. However, they also had a cook on site that would happily prepare alternate meals on request.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. There were processes to monitor people’s care and treatment and their outcomes. There were records related to people’s skin integrity, and the management of ongoing health conditions. However, these were not consistently completed.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People were supported to make unwise decisions by non-judgemental staff who respected their lifestyle choices.

The registered manager worked in partnership with people’s advocates and representatives in line with The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Staff completed training in MCA and understood the concept of consent. We observed staff gain consent from people before completing any tasks. We saw that consent for care and treatment was obtained in people’s care plans and records. The provider made applications to the local authority if people were at risk of being deprived of their liberty.