Marham House 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 assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 58 (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.

Although some sections of some people’s care plans were detailed and person-centred, this was not consistent. When care plans described people’s assessed needs, they did not always provide guidance for staff on how to support the person to meet those needs. For example, the provider did not always ensure these their systems in place to assess and plan for people's needs effectively reviewed and reflective of people’s current needs. For example, we found shortfalls in the planning and guidance for staff in meeting people's needs.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. We could not be assured the service always planned and delivered people's care effectively. The provider had not identified that people's care plans were not always consistent or reflective of how to meet their individual needs and preferences.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. The regional manager recently introduced daily handovers and regular staff meetings so information about people could be identified and shared. However, we found, key information from the handover meetings was not always shared with staff. There was evidence that showed the home worked with external health professionals to ensure they were meeting people’s individual needs.

People were fully supported in making choices about their own health needs. The service had regular visits from a primary care paramedic which provided continuity for people. One person told us, “They get the doctor if I am feeling unwell, and they check on me.” People were supported to access a variety of external health professionals such as the GP, dentist and optician as they needed to.

The provider did not always effectively monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. We identified concerns regarding safe staffing levels, medicines safety, managing risks, and learning from incidents and accidents. The provider had not independently identified these concerns before our assessment. This increased the risk of people not experiencing positive and consistent outcomes.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People's capacity to make decisions related to their care and treatment had been considered, and authorisation had been sought to deprive people of their liberty where required. Capacity assessments and best interest decisions were in place when needed to ensure the Mental Capacity Act was applied. Staff had received training in this area and were aware of the processes to follow.