The Old Vicarage

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.

Improvements were needed to make sure assessments and care plans were updated regularly to reflect people’s changing needs.

People had their needs assessed before they moved into the home. One person said, “They asked what I wanted, when I was first here.”

Care plans were developed from the initial assessments to give staff the information they needed to provide appropriate care to people. We found assessments and care plans were not always updated in a timely way. This could lead to staff not having up to date information about people’s needs and preferences. The registered manager began updating care plans and gave assurances that all care plans would be updated within 3 weeks.

Staff said they were always kept informed of any changes. One member of staff told us, “We have a communication book and diary. We always meet at 11am and we are told about any changes.”

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 staff used recognised assessment tools to assess people’s needs including pressure care and nutrition. All staff received regular training to make sure the support they provided was in accordance with up-to-date best practice and legislation.

People and families said they were always consulted on their care to make sure they received support in accordance with their wishes.

People had mixed views about the food served at the home, but all agreed they received enough to eat and drink. Comments included, “Food is Lovely,” “Food could be better, it’s not as good as it used to be” and “The food is alright.” Everyone said if they did not like what was on the menu they could ask for an alternative.

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 told us they had good relationships with other professionals. One person commented, “Nurse comes – had covid injection recently, don’t have to worry about remembering. They do all that.”

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.

People had access to health and social care professionals according to their individual needs. There were various activities at the home which promoted people’s health and wellbeing.

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.

People were happy with the care and support they received. One person commented, “I absolutely feel well looked after.” A family member told us, “Its 5 star all really good, the whole collective work well together, they have never said don’t leave me and I feel happy leaving them.”

People lived in a home where they received care with their consent if they were able to give it. However, where people lacked the capacity to consent, the provider did not always work in accordance with the law and current best practice guidelines.

People told us they only received care and support with their consent. Some people lacked capacity to make some decisions for themselves. It was not always clear how capacity had been assessed or how decisions had been made in their best interests. Staff spoken with understood the principles of the mental capacity act but were not recording when best interests decisions had been made. We discussed this with the provider and registered manager who gave assurances they would make improvements in this area.

One family member said they had legal powers to make decisions on behalf of their relative and had been asked to do so.