Homewood 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.

Overall, people's needs had been assessed and care plans contained detailed, clear and consistent information for staff. People's risks had been identified and were monitored. People were supported in line with current best practice. Staff told us people were involved in their assessment, staff wrote the assessment and then read it to the person, making changes where the person indicated they wished to be supported differently. People's daily records showed they were continually involved in how their care and support was delivered and how risks were managed. People’s relatives, where appropriate, were fully involved in the development of people’s care plans and risk assessment.

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.

Each person had an eating and drinking support plan that was kept under review. We observed, and people and their relatives confirmed, people made choices about what and when they ate and drank. Staff monitored people’s diet and provided support where appropriate.

Staff told us, and records showed, people had access to relevant medical professionals as and when needed. For example, when a person had shown signs of a risk of choking, staff referred the person to a speech and language therapist who completed an assessment. We saw the assessment had now been incorporated into the person’s care plan and staff were following the guidance.

A health professional told us, “We have built up a good relationship with (the service) …“When they bring patients to their annual learning disability health check…they demonstrate that they know them very well and encourage healthy lifestyle like diet and exercise regularly and support patients to improve their health.”

We saw staff knew people well. People were supported to maintain positive relationships with their relatives and those important to them. For example, we saw people being encouraged to purchase items for their relative and arrangements were being made for them to meet up.

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.

Care plans included detailed personalised information to enable person led support. Staff shared their knowledge with each other and with relevant medical professionals where appropriate. Staff were able to recognise where people's needs were changing and gained the involvement of relevant professionals.

Feedback we received from health and social care professionals involved with the service was positive. Comments included, “Staff clearly placed a strong emphasis on residents’ health and wellbeing and were observed to seek appropriate external support in a timely and proactive manner when required…Communication with the home has consistently been effective and responsive, with enquiries addressed promptly and professionally.”

People's goals and aspirations were detailed in their support plan. We saw staff support people with a consistent approach. For example, we saw staff supporting a person to wash their clothes, they did this following a step-by-step routine. A person had a communication book to ensure consistency between the home and day services.

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 were supported to manage their health and wellbeing and were encouraged to do as much as possible for themselves. Where people’s presentation changed, staff looked at the reasons for this. They considered ill health in the first instance. For example, a person had become distressed, and the staff arranged an emergency GP and dental appointment, which found the person had an infection in their mouth. The team supported the person with antibiotics and pain relief as prescribed. We received positive feedback from medical professionals.

People’s relatives confirmed the service supported their family members to stay healthy and attend medical appointments when necessary. They told us the staff always kept them informed about any health issues and the outcomes.

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.

Prior to our inspection people’s care plans had not been regularly reviewed. The registered manager was aware of this, and people’s care plans and assessments were now up to date. Records showed people’s assessments and support plans were updated when their needs changed.

People’s relatives told us they were involved in the support planning process. People's initial assessments detailed their individual strengths, goals, and life experiences. This information was included in people’s support plans. People had regular key worker meetings where their goals were reviewed with them.

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

Staff had received training in relation to The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), which provides a legal framework for making decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The registered manager and staff had a clear understanding of the MCA. For example, a mental capacity assessment and best interest decision had been recorded for a person who required support at night to stay safe.

We observed staff gained people's consent prior to providing care and support. Where people made choices that may be considered unwise, staff ensured people understood the risk and then upheld their right to make their own decisions. Care plans provided staff with guidance about how to involve people as fully as possible in making decisions. Staff communicated using people's preferred methods.