Davenham Hall Nursing 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 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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Staff confirmed that people’s care plans were in place and they read them during handover, so they knew what was required. People’s care plans contained examples of assessments of people’s needs and risks, for example, risk of falls, people’s mobility, nutrition, and their skin integrity. People’s loved ones detailed how the teams’ good lines of communication eased any worries they had and one person said, “I have no concerns about their safety because when I visit, I have confidence in their care and communication. My relative is very anxious and they are aware of their needs.”

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. We saw evidence the provider worked with healthcare professionals to ensure people’s health needs were met.People were supported to maintain relationships with their family and friends. This included facilitating people visiting their family home, and welcoming visitors for people into the service. We observed informal group gatherings of people, family and friends in one room and all the people involved genuinely knew each other and the atmosphere was jovial and warm.

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. Communication systems were in place to ensure information was shared, this included handover records, team meetings and supervision. Information about people’s healthcare needs including medication, were held within a hospital passport, should a person require hospital admission.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. People and their loved ones told us food was an issue, and we saw examples of food given to people which did not support people to live healthier lives. People’s loved ones told us, “The way they present the food isn’t good” and “I am not happy with the food quality which I have mentioned at meetings” We shared these concerns with the registered manager and they told us they were trying to employ a permanent chef.

People had access to a regular GP who visited the service weekly. Staff were confident in reporting any changes about a person’s needs to the nurse in charge who would in turn share with the registered manager or deputy. This ensured people received the support they required to meet their needs.

Overall, the provider monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they fully met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. Not all care plans were person-centred and we found a lack of detail in some. However, the care plans did focus on people's health conditions, the risks and what support they needed. Appropriate referrals had been made to specialist services when additional health support was identified as being needed. Accident, incident and falls were accurately reported and robustly reviewed, with clear analysis for trends and themes and actions taken in a timely manner following each event.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Where people had been assessed as lacking capacity, their relatives or lasting power of attorney had been consulted regarding decisions in relation to care and treatment, so these were made in people’s best interest. Staff demonstrated good understanding of the principles of the MCA and confirmed they had received training in the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). Staff we spoke with understood which people had capacity and those who needed support to make day to day decisions.