Wellburn 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 67 (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.

Staff assessed people’s needs in a coordinated way using pre-admission assessments and information provided by people and their families. Relatives reported being involved in this process. The home was supportive of people moving into the service by ensuring dates and times were convenient to people and their family members.

Assessments reflected care needs, preferences and considered individual risks. There was evidence of review and updating of care and support plans in response to people’s changing needs.

Staff had a good awareness of care and support people required.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

Care plans did not always reflect relevant best practice clinical guidance. For example, diabetes care plans did not always contain clear and necessary guidance on how to manage abnormal blood glucose readings and wound care plans did not always provide current information on the status of the wound and dressing regimes.

Care plans and assessments linked to oral health and nutrition included relevant details and evidenced input from dental practitioners, speech and language services and dietitians.

Staff had an awareness of people’s dietary needs and preferences. The chef ensured people had foods according to their needs such as modified textures. Good hydration was promoted. People could help themselves to snacks and drinks stations at ‘hydration stations’ located around the home.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people.

Staff worked collaboratively with external professionals to support people’s health and wellbeing. The service had good links with multidisciplinary team (MDT) colleagues across primary care, community care and specialist services.

Healthcare professionals gave us mixed feedback about the effectiveness of their work with staff at the service. Some reported how staff would seek help appropriately and do the things asked of them. Others felt joint working could be improved through better communications and more efficient and proactive referrals to allow for timelier interventions. The registered manager was working with partners to improve this area.

The provider had information sharing procedures to support people moving between services or in the event of an urgent admission. This minimised distress to people who may have to tell their story more than once.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing.

Staff encouraged people to live healthier lives by understanding what was important to them, by supporting decision making and by introducing opportunities to improve their quality of life.

People accessed healthcare services and complimentary therapies to support their health and wellbeing. Healthcare professionals attended the home to meet with people where they had difficulties in attending external appointments.

Staff supported people to engage in interests, hobbies and activities to enhance their wellbeing.

The activities programme, community engagement events and bespoke individual planned events encouraged meaningful social interaction, exercise, community engagement and fun.

An effective system was not fully in place to evidence staff monitored and improved people’s outcomes.

Staff did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent for people, or that they met clinical expectations, care standards and the expectations of people themselves. Healthcare professionals gave mixed feedback on outcomes for people around skin integrity, wound care and end-of-life care.

On our first visit, we identified concerns around environmental safety, cleanliness, medicines management, the dining experience and some shortfalls in relation to people’s individual care.

The provider’s own internal monitoring checks were not consistently applied or did not reasonably identify areas where outcomes could be improved for people.

These observations were reported to the registered manager.

On our second visit, the registered manager had taken action to address the concerns we raised.

People did report how much they enjoyed and benefitted from the activities and outings into the community. They told us ow this promoted their wellbeing and they enjoyed the social interaction.

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

We observed staff using effective communication, providing information and visual prompts to people to inform decision making and consent. Where people needed support in making decisions, staff gave them time and space to do so.

Staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), the legal framework to support people who may lack the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves. Care records demonstrated decision‑specific assessments and the two‑stage mental capacity test to ensure any decision made on behalf of a person was in their best interests.

Staff were observed to act in people’s best interests and there was no evidence of any blanket restrictions or overly restrictive practices.