Abbey Ravenscroft Park 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 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 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. People had an initial assessment before they moved into the home to determine if the home was a suitable place for them and they could be supported by staff. Assessments included information about people’s health conditions, communication needs, emotional needs, nutritional and personal care needs and people’s history.

People and those involved in their care took part in assessments and reviews of their needs. Records showed their views and opinions were respected, listened to and implemented as part of the day-to-day support. A person told us, “I have everything I need and I can ask if I need anything.”

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.

At our last inspection we found the provider did not always monitor people’s food and fluid intake correctly. Kitchen staff did not have clear guidance on how to prepare some foods at the correct consistency or in line with some people’s cultural preferences.

At this inspection these concerns had been addressed. People’s nutrition and hydration was monitored to ensure they consumed enough food and water. Some people required their meals to be at a certain consistency and the kitchen staff were able to provide this in accordance with the IDDSI (International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative) framework. People received an improved meal experience. At lunchtime, people were offered a choice of meals and all staff wore appropriate clothing to ensure food was not contaminated and met hygiene standards. People requiring assistance received the necessary support promptly and respectfully.

A variety of drinks were offered to people throughout their meal. Tables were appropriately set and the dining area was clean, tidy and pleasant. We noticed the head chef personally attend the dining area to ensure people were satisfied with their meals. A person said, “The food is nice. They do a very good job, the chefs.” A relative told us, “The food is OK, [family member’s] diet is catered for and they are probably the healthiest they have ever been in their life because [family member] used to eat so badly”.

Staff observed people when they were eating their meals if they were at risk of choking. People's health conditions had been assessed and planned for. For example, people had choking risk assessments in place with recommended interventions, if this applied to them. If there were concerns about people’s diets, staff contacted speech and language therapists or dieticians to receive recommendations for staff and people to follow. Care plans provided staff with guidance about how to provide effective care and support. Health needs were monitored. For example, people’s weights were regularly checked to enable responsive action to any significant increase or decrease in weights. This meant concerns could easily be identified and raised with the GP.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. Care records confirmed people attended health appointments with a wide range of health professionals to make sure they received the treatment they needed. Care records confirmed recommendations made by professionals were implemented.

There was a collaborative approach to planning and coordinating people’s care and treatment. Systems and processes were in place to share information with internal and external health and social care professionals. We found information sharing with professionals to be positive so continuity of care for people was effectively managed.

The manager knew who to contact for advice about people’s health and support needs and people had weekly checks from their GP. For example, people’s healthcare practitioners such as their local GP, speech and language therapists and occupational therapists. People and relatives confirmed staff worked well with other teams to get the support and treatment they required. A relative said, “The doctor comes every Tuesday, and it is quite easy to see him”. A person told us, “They will arrange the doctor or someone to see me. They are great, like this morning they dressed my foot.”

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 supported people with their health conditions and systems and processes were in place to continually monitor people's health related needs. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s health care needs and support. There were effective communication procedures in place to keep staff up to date with any changes and important information. Changes in people’s behaviour or presentation which showed a deterioration in their health or wellbeing, were recognised by staff.

Relatives were confident their family member’s health needs were met, and they were supported to live comfortably in their surroundings. A relative told us, “It is very clean and nice here. [Family member] gets good personal care everyday.”

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.

People told us they were settled in the home. Systems and processes were in place to continually monitor and improve their outcomes. Records showed when people received key working support from a staff member, staff used their skills and knowledge to enable people to work towards and achieve their aspirations and potential. People were encouraged to eat as healthily as possible, follow any hobbies or interests or personal preferences. We observed staff demonstrating knowledge of people’s individual preferences, including gestures of reassurance such as handholding. People were supported to achieve positive outcomes such as developing their independence and wellbeing. They were supported to maintain relationships with their relatives and staff supported them to do this. A relative said, “So far we are really happy with the home, and I visit most days.”

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

The provider had systems and processes that ensured the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) was followed effectively, to support people who lacked mental capacity to make specific decisions about their care. Mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were completed following the principles of the MCA, to ensure decisions made on behalf of people were made lawfully.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. In care homes, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People that were assessed as requiring a DoLS had these in place. The manager ensured DoLS applications were made annually before they were due to expire.

Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and understood its principles. We observed staff offering choices to people and sought their consent before providing them support. People and relatives told us staff were respectful of their choices and decisions. A relative said, “The staff seems very respectful and they ask for [family member’s] consent before they do things.”

People were informed about their rights around consent and respected how they wished to receive person-centred care and treatment. People, as much as possible, made their own choices and decisions on a day-to-day basis about what they did, what they ate and how they filled their time.