Watermead Rose 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 service. This key question has been rated 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.

Staff assessed people’s health, care, wellbeing, and communication needs to ensure they received appropriate support. The assessment process was ongoing and continually updated to reflect people’s changing needs. Care plans and risk assessments were regularly reviewed by senior staff to check they were fit for purpose.

Care records included people’s life histories, individual preferences, and interests. This promoted a person-centred approach where people had as much choice and control as possible. A staff member gave us an example of how they communicated with a person who was deaf, using the person’s care plan to guide them. The told us how they used signs and pictures, or wrote things down, so the person was able to make choices about their care and support.

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.

People received care, treatment and support that was evidence-based and in line with good practice standards. The provider’s training department ensured staff completed training courses that were up to date and reflected national legislation, evidence-based good practice guidance, and required standards.

Where relevant, in-house training was enhanced by local specialists. For example, a local hospice provided end-of-life care training, and a person living with motor neurone disease visited the service to speak to staff about their experience of this condition.

The provider sent bulletins to staff updating them on new developments and changes in the field of care and nursing. Staff used NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) and CQC guidance to inform them on current best practice in health and social care in the UK.They also used nationally recognised clinical tools to assess and monitor people’s needs, for example, MUST (to identify people who were malnourished, or at risk of malnutrition or obesity) and Waterlow (to assess people’s risk of developing pressure areas).

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. Information was shared between teams and services to ensure continuity of care, for example when clinical tasks were delegated, or when people are referred between services.

When people received care from a range of different staff, teams or services, it was co-ordinated effectively. Care records showed that staff, teams and services were involved in assessing, planning and delivering people's care and treatment and staff worked collaboratively to understand and meet people's needs. For example, an external dietician monitored a person’s diet, and staff at the service followed the dietician’s instructions when providing the person with food and fluid.

Another person needed pressure area care so the person, staff at the service, and an external tissue viability nurse met to discuss repositioning strategies. This led to a regime being developed that was acceptable to the person, and enabled staff to reposition them while at the same time allowing them to rest adequately.

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 and relatives said staff monitored healthcare needs and ensured they were met. A person said, “They come and weigh me every so often and check my blood pressure. I can see they’re doing everything right.”

People were encouraged, where appropriate, to manage their own health, care and wellbeing needs. A person who had capacity told us they had the option of being weighed monthly but refused at times. As there was nothing to cause concern regarding their weight staff respected their decision.

Staff supported people to remain active and mobile. A staff member told us, “We take people for short walks to help their mobility. We value person-centred care here because it gives people independence.”

Staff monitored people’s health and booked appointments or them with healthcare professionals when they needed them. They had the information and training they needed to support people with specific health conditions. In addition, the frequent interaction staff had with people gave them the opportunity to regularly check on their health and welfare.

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.

A relative said that when their family member was first admitted to the service they couldn’t get out of bed. They told us, “Within a week staff had [person] in a wheelchair and participating in activities. The 2 activity ladies are brilliant. They quickly built up a rapport with [person] who regained the confidence they’d lost.”

Records showed there were systems and processes for monitoring and improving outcomes for people.

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

A person said staff always asked for their consent before providing care and support. They told us, “They say, ‘can we do this’ and ‘can we do that’.” A relative told us, “They tell [person] what they’re doing when they provide personal care.”

Staff were trained on the MCA and knowledgeable about people’s rights regarding consenting to care and treatment. A staff member said, “When we support a person, we read the care plan, and we will ask them [before providing support]. It’s up to the person. We can’t make decisions [for people], we can’t assume things, we respect their decisions.” Another staff member told us, “You have to assume the person has capacity unless it’s clear the person needs a second person to make a decision. This information would be in the care plan.”

The provider worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Systems were in place to ensure mental capacity assessments were completed when necessary. If people could not make decisions or consent to their care, processes were in place to ensure decisions were made in their best interests, involving all relevant persons.