Weald Hall Residential 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 inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained 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 service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Care plans and risk assessments contained all the information staff needed to support people. Before people came to the service a full assessment of their needs was completed to help formulate the basis of their care plan. The manager told us staff spent time getting to know people and talking to them and their relatives. Staff then added more information into care plans as they got to know people better. Care plans and risk assessments were regularly updated to ensure they contained the most relevant information.

The service 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. Staff knew people well and how they wished to be supported with food and drink. People were given options at mealtimes and were able to choose what they wanted to eat. Assessments were in place to help staff recognise the support people required, and staff had undergone training to recognise if people were choking and how they could intervene. A person told us, “I like the food they make here. If I don’t like what’s on the menu, I can ask for something else and they make it.”

The service 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 had access to the information they needed to work with people and where required, helped them safely transition between healthcare teams. The manager told us they had developed good links with the health professionals. Where appropriate, staff supported people to attend health appointments. Staff meetings and handovers were in place to ensure staff were provided with current information to work together to support people.

The service 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 access healthcare professionals such as opticians, podiatrists, the palliative care team, district nurses and GPs. The service also held weekly multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings via Zoom to discuss people's health needs and ensure a coordinated approach to their care. In addition, the hospital matron had weekly contact with the service and carried out regular visits to review people and provide professional support and guidance.
Where people had specialist hospital appointments, they were supported to attend these. People told us they had access to healthcare when they needed it.
 

The service 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. The manager had effective monitoring systems in place to oversee people's health. These tools provided regular feedback on people's wellbeing and helped identify any concerns at an early stage. Care plans were audited and reviewed to ensure information was accurate.
The manager told us they sought feedback from people through meetings and surveys about their care experience. At the time of the inspection, survey responses had been collected, however, the results had not yet been analysed to identify themes, trends or areas for improvement.
We found the service's pictorial ‘You Said, We Did’ poster was displayed in the hallway rather than in a communal area used by people living at the service. This meant it was not readily visible to people and did not effectively demonstrate how their feedback had been acted upon. Following the inspection, the manager told us they would relocate the poster to a more accessible area within the service so that people could easily view it.
 

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People’s consent for care was sought, and staff understood the requirement to seek consent for care from people. Staff supported people to make decisions for themselves and offered them choice during all interactions.
The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible.
People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The manager was working within the principles of MCA and had applied for assessments and renewals of DoLS when required.