Wolfe House Care 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 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 75 (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.

The registered manager visited people to complete assessments prior to them moving to Wolfe House to ensure the home were able to meet their needs. The registered manager told us, “I want to make sure the home is right for them and they are a good fit for the home.” They told us the assessment process also gave the opportunity to check if staff required any additional training to care for people safely.

People’s care plans and risk assessments were developed using assessment information and reviewed/updated on a monthly basis, or when people’s needs or preferences changed. Care plans contained detailed information and guidance for staff to follow in relation to people’s needs and wishes. Relatives representing their family members told us they were involved in developing care plans and were updated regarding any changes. One relative told us, “They do involve me and I am in contact with the local council. It all works together.”

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

The registered manager attended registered managers forums to ensure they stayed up to date with best practice guidance and to share knowledge and ideas. Staff also completed training in areas of best practice such as preparing food to the correct consistency for people at risk of choking, maintaining skin integrity and assessing people’s risk of malnutrition. In addition, regular observations of people’s health gave staff a baseline and enabled them to identify any deterioration promptly so support could be sought from healthcare professionals.

Staff had completed the recommended training for supporting people with a learning disability. However, the registered manager and staff were unaware of the Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture best practice guidance. The registered manager gave assurances they would review this guidance and share their learning and understanding with the wider staff team.

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.

The registered manager and provider had implemented systems to support staff in accessing information and to aid the smooth running of the service. Examples included the introduction of an allocation checklist which helped staff plan their day and make sure important tasks were not missed. The use of electronic care planning systems also ensured any changes to people’s care was highlighted for staff as soon as possible. The system also enabled information to be easily shared with other professionals involved in people’s care.

Staff told us they felt the team worked well together and that they could rely on each other for support. One staff member told us, “It works because we are a good team. We communicate clearly.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

The service had developed positive relationships with the community nursing team and GP practice. This meant that any concerns regarding people’s health could be discussed and actioned promptly. Relatives told us they felt assured by the support provided to monitor people’s health. Comments included, “I feel they do [monitor health needs] and they will let me know if anything happens.” And “If they need a GP they manage it.”

Staff had been trained to take people’s basic health information which enabled them to identify and take action should any deterioration in their condition be noted.

Staff encouraged people to maintain movement by doing chair exercises. The registered manager told us they were looking at training for staff in this area to further enhance their understanding.

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’s care plans and risk assessments recorded individual outcomes and systems were in place to monitor their well-being. Examples included supporting people to maintain their mobility, encouraging good nutrition and fluid intake, and the monitoring of specific health concerns. Staff knew people’s needs and the support they required in these areas. The registered manager monitored people’s day to day care and health in areas such as people’s weight, skin integrity, falls and medicines management. This enabled any issues to be reviewed and acted upon.

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

Staff were aware of their responsibility to gain people’s consent before offering support. One staff member told us, “We offer choices and we always ask if they are ready [for their care].” We observed staff offer people choices regarding what they wanted to do, where they wanted to sit and who they would like to spend time with.

Systems were in place to ensure people’s rights were protected and the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) were followed. Decision specific capacity assessments were completed to determine people’s capacity. Where people were found to lack capacity for specific decisions best interests decisions were recorded. These considered any previous wishes of the person, observations and discussions with those who knew the person well such as family members.