Andrew Smith House - Nelson

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 managers conducted thorough assessments of people’s needs and staff could access these easily via handheld electronic devices. People’s care needs were reviewed on a monthly basis or when there was a change to their health and wellbeing.

The provider always 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. They worked to develop evidence-based good practice and standards.

The managers used nationally recognised tools to assess people’s needs such as regarding their skin health, and risk of losing weight. This meant that care could be considered and delivered in a way that was appropriate to people living at the home.

There was a robust falls prevention policy and process which staff understood and implemented.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

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.

All food was prepared freshly at the home and offered people healthy options and choices, to support their health. The provider employed 3 activities co-ordinators who supported people to do a range of activities both inside and outside the home. This included different types of exercises according to people’s abilities. People participated in local discos and social networks to support their wellbeing.

Staff supported people to be independent and to gain and maintain skills, to support them to maintain choice and control over their routines and daily lives.

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.

Staff monitored and recorded health outcomes such as people’s weight, food and drink, and post fall observations. Action was taken if staff noted a change or decline in people’s health. Staff recorded when they provided pressure relief which was usually completed according to people’s care plans.

However we saw occasionally repositioning had been completed at longer time intervals than what guidance stated. We fed this back to the manager who agreed to make changes immediately.

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

Staff understood the principles of consent and the Mental Capacity Act, and considered this throughout their caring interventions. Consent for issues such as providing care, vaccines and to CCTV were contained in care plans. Staff completed relevant training. The managers applied to the local authority if people were at risk of being deprived of their liberty, and these were monitored.