The Old Garden 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.

This is the first inspection since the provider changed their name. They were previously rated good. At this inspection the rating has remained the same. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (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’s needs were assessed before they moved into the service. Staff used initial assessment documentation to understand people’s preferences, health conditions, and support requirements. Care plans were personalised and reflected people’s choices, such as preferred meals, routines, and communication styles. Staff knew people well and were able to describe their individual needs. One person said, “They discuss my needs and care with me.”

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. Care and support were delivered in line with recognised standards and guidance. Staff followed advice from professionals such as Speech and Language Teams (SALT) and dietitians, and care plans included recommendations for positioning during meals and supervision needs.

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. Staff worked well together and with external professionals to meet people’s needs. There was evidence of collaboration with GPs, nurse practitioners, and other health services. People told us they could see a doctor when needed, and staff supported them to attend appointments. Handover records were detailed and ensured continuity of care. Staff described good teamwork and said they felt supported by colleagues and management.

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 maintain their health and wellbeing. Dietary needs and preferences were documented, and staff encouraged people to eat and drink regularly. One person said, “I do get enough to eat and am offered more if I want it.” Activities were varied and included outings, yoga, and therapy dogs, supporting physical and emotional wellbeing. Staff monitored health conditions and responded to changes, although some care records needed more consistent documentation of oral health and pressure care. The provider had already identified this themselves and were had devised an action plan for completion.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. The service monitored outcomes through audits and feedback. Care plans were regularly reviewed, and staff used handover forms to track changes in health and wellbeing. Staff described how they used feedback to improve care, such as changing suppliers based on people’s preferences.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and sought consent before providing care. We observed staff knocking on doors and asking permission before entering rooms. Care records showed that people were involved in decisions about their care. We saw however, some consent forms were signed by attorneys without the correct authority, and MCA documentation for covert medication lacked some detail. We raised this with the provider, who agreed to review and update the records. Where people lacked capacity, best interest decisions were documented, although some care plans required minor updates to ensure clarity.