Haighfield 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 supportachieved 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 67 (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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

There was evidence of people’s needs being assessed when they first moved to the home. Relatives said they were involved in this process where possible. However, some care plans in general lacked important information about people’s care, for example regarding skin integrity, communication, eating/drinking and personal hygiene. An electronic system was used to record care interventions carried out by staff, however, there were lots of gaps where these had not always been clearly recorded.

Information in people’s care plans was not always accurate, complete and up to date. The registered manager told us, “We use an electronic care planning system for our resident care plans and risk assessments. When they are reviewed, as a minimum monthly, any risks are highlighted in real time. We complete audit trails and compile action plans for any identified risks or update the residents' care plans and risk assessments as changes occur.” Whilst risk assessments were in place for various areas of care provision, the process of reviewing care plans had not identified the gaps in care records we found during this inspection.

People and relatives, told us they were involved in assessments. People had personalised care and support plans which considered both their physical and mental health needs. A person told us, “When I came in, they [staff] asked questions about my health and did a care plan.” A second person said, “They [staff] did it [care needs assessment] with me; the manager came to my room here and asked me a lot of questions and did a care plan.” A relative commented, “[Person] has phone call appointments; they [other health care professionals] come to the home to take blood and [person’s] Parkinsons nurse comes here.”

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

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.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

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

People’s views and wishes were considered and people confirmed this. One person told us, “Staff ask me if I want a wash or shower.” Another person said, “I fell at home and the nurses said I would be better here [living in the care home]. When I came in, they [staff] asked questions about my health and did a care plan.” People’s daily schedule was based around their choices and how they wanted to spend their time. People were supported to generate and achieve goals.

People understood their rights around consent and staff supported them to understand these. People received information about their care and treatment in a way they could understand and had appropriate support and time to make decisions. People's capacity and ability to consent was considered, and there was a staff freedom to speak up champion in post. However, capacity assessments were not always completed, for example bed rails and the use of sensor mats in people’s bedrooms, although there were care plans for these in place.

Staff understood the importance of ensuring people fully understood what they were consenting to and the importance of obtaining consent before they delivered care or treatment. We observed staff seeking consent from people throughout this inspection. Staff had completed training in the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Where applicable, ‘Do Not Attempt CPR’ notices were securely stored and easily accessible in case of an emergency.