Archived: Guysfield Residential 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 the last inspection we rated this key question as good. At this inspection this key question 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’s needs were assessed before moving to the service and they felt the staff were able to meet their needs. People and their relatives told us they had enough information and support to ensure the move into the home and the transition went well. A relative told us, “We viewed several homes when making our choice and choose Guysfield as we felt it offered the most comfortable feeling, we had a home visit from [name] the manager and [name] deputy, to discuss our needs, they helped us to make the decision based on their honest answers.”

Staff told us people’s needs were always reviewed and outcomes shared. A staff member said, “A pre- assessment is normally done before admission and staff notified prior to the person's arrival and informed of their potential needs.”

Care plans were developed from a preadmission assessment, and through people’s involvement, which included important health, support information as well as people’s preferences and backgrounds. People and their relatives felt involved in this process.

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 and relatives said they had enough to eat and drink, sufficient choice and support. A person said, “Food is very good, never get hungry here, they try their best to please everyone.” A relative said, “The food they provide is always very well presented and diets tailored to individual needs, they do constant visual checks on residents, and everything is logged on the system.”

Staff were working in accordance with planned care needs. The mealtime experience was pleasant, and food looked and smelt appetising. All staff from within the home supported with mealtimes so everyone ate at the same time.

Staff were chatting with people, explaining what the meal was. We saw people’s likes and dislikes were known and staff supported this. We saw there was plenty of drinks offered throughout the day.

There had been an introduction of a ‘high tea’ on Wednesdays were an afternoon tea trolley with cakes and drinks was taken round for people to pick from.

There were mealtime experience checks in place and monitoring of people’s dietary needs, preferences and weights. Fortified meals were provided for those who needed them.

Records of weight measurements showed a number of people who were unintentionally losing weight, the management team told us many of these people were nearing the end of their lives and told us of the action taken to reduce this. They told us the monitored mealtimes, snack times and people’s nutritional intake. In addition, different ways of improving appetites were tried, such as buffet meals which people enjoyed.

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.

People, and their relatives, told us staff knew them well. They told us if they needed any health care input this was sought. A relative said, “My relative has access to health professionals and additional services which Guysfield manage well.”

Staff told us they worked with health and social care professionals to ensure people had the right care and support. This included mental health teams, district nurses and GPs. Feedback from a visiting health and social care professional stated, “I find the staff are always prepared for my visits. Staff are happy to engage in the review process, and I can always find someone to talk with me, answer questions, listen to feedback/ comments etc.”

People’s care plans included a record of information obtained on their admission to the home. This was transferred into and informed the care plan.

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 and their relatives told us they felt their physical, emotional and social needs were met. They said they had plenty to do to fill their time. A person said, “Enough to do but I don’t really join in, I like my own company.” A relative said, “Many activities are provided such as crafts, entertainment, keep fit, gardening etc.” Another relative said, “The welfare team are on hand daily to provide all sorts of activities for people to participate in and organise special events, birthdays, Mother/Father’s Day etc, and weather permitted outings to the local pond in the village.”

Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about what people enjoyed doing and how to support them to live a healthy life.

Some people had chosen to stay in bed or in their rooms. Staff were going in routinely to support people to check on them and see if they needed anything. People were being encouraged to join in with activities to help encourage movement and socialisation.

In communal areas people were listening to music on the TV, having one to one chats, and visiting the hairdresser. People had opportunities to get out and about and there were visiting entertainers who, people told us, they enjoyed. There were events planned based on seasons or important dates. Family members were invited to join. A relative said, “Family involvement is encouraged and meetings with the manager are offered as well as social functions for families to join such as the summer BBQ, gardening events and Father’s Day lunch etc.”

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 needs were reviewed regularly and in between if needs changed.

Staff were able to explain how they monitored people’s health and wellbeing. They were aware of what action to take if needed.

There were systems in place to have overview of people’s care needs, wounds and infections for example, and this included progress updates.

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

People told us they were able to make their own choices. We observed people being able to move around the home freely. Relatives felt people had their choices respected.

Staff were aware of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). They were able to tell us how they incorporated the principles of the MCA in their day-to-day roles. For example, ensuring choices were offered to people and respected by staff. A staff member said, “I use my training to always treat the residents with respect and that they are capable of making their own decision with considering their best interests as the same time.”

People’s care plans included discussions of capacity assessments, detailing how capacity for specific decisions was assessed.

Plans were clear where people had capacity to make day to day decisions, but more support was needed for more complex decisions. There was a record when Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations were requested. A DoLS authorisations tracker was in place so the progress of applications could be monitored. If anyone had conditions imposed for authorised DoLS these were recorded and staff made aware of how to comply with these.