St Georges Court 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 79 (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 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, “When I came staff were very welcoming and they learned quickly all about me. They are really good at noticing things.”

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.

Relatives spoke positively about the care provided to their relative and people told us the staff looked after them well. People’s care preferences and wishes were taken into consideration when planning their care. One person told us how they had been asked their preference over the gender of staff that supported them with their personal care. They said, “I am ok with both-it was nice they asked, I didn’t expect that.”

Risk assessments and care plans identified areas requiring evidence-based support. The service used an electronic care planning system to identify individual risk factors. Care records included up-to-date nutrition and hydration guidance, supporting staff to meet people’s needs effectively. Care plans and daily notes demonstrated a clear understanding of dietary frameworks, including the International Dysphagia Diet Standardising Initiative (IDDSI), ensuring safe and appropriate nutrition. The care planning system also identified risks such as if a person may have a higher risk of falls or require support to maintain skin integrity. Collaboration with healthcare professionals was evident, with timely interventions supporting people’s wellbeing.

The provider had employed a dedicated dementia nurse to work with their services to deliver tailored training to staff and review individual care plans. They also provided support and information about dementia to relatives of people living in the service.

The provider told us that the service was contributing to national sector research on care home infection rates and prevention strategies.

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.

There was a collaborative approach to planning and coordinating people’s care and treatment.Regular handover discussions, team meetings and clinical meetings ensured information was shared amongst the team.

We found staff had established positive working relationships with partner agencies, cooperating efficiently to achieve the best possible outcomes for people. Referrals and requests for professional advice were made promptly whenever concerns arose. Documented evidence confirmed staff followed the guidance provided by healthcare professionals.

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.

Evidence in care plans and daily care records confirmed people had access to local healthcare services and interventions were well documented. Staff used a range of monitoring tools to help them identify any changes to a person’s health and well-being– this included food and fluid monitoring. The service employed an activities coordinator who knew people well. Activities which encouraged people to maintain movement were included in the weekly timetable such as exercise classes, and a music and movement sessions. We saw photographs of people attending these classes. People and relatives also told us that staff supported people to appointments when needed, one person said, “Staff supported me on numerous occasions to my hospital appointments, and I was very grateful to them for helping me. While all professionals are kind and trying to explain the best they can, the next moment I forget so it was very useful having fresh ears to back up.” A relative also told us that the staff were arranging for their family member to be seen by a specialist, they said, “Nurses are liaising with other professionals to try to address my relative’s conditions: they are trying to help [them] to see a specialist, so we feel well supported.”

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 felt that because staff knew them well, they were able to intervene and support them effectively when they became aware of an issue or deterioration in their health. One person told us that staff had suggested a re-assessment of their wheelchair when unknown marks were appearing on their skin. This then led to a change in their wheelchair.

Relatives told us they were kept well informed of any changes their family member may be experiencing, we were told, “Staff and nurses communicate well … they call me back and update me”.

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 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 staff and registered manager at the service worked with people and their relatives to review safeguards in place to ensure that people were supported in the least restrictive way. The registered manager told us that for one person at the service, they had been supported to have their DoLS removed completely.

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 support. Care plans reinforced the need to always ask for consent. Staff were able to use a range of communication methods to ensure that people were provided with the information in the most appropriate way to meet their needs.

.