Drumconner Lancing

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 ensured care and treatment was effective through person-centred assessments and regular reviews of people’s health, wellbeing, communication and support needs. Assessments reflected people’s wishes, preferences and protected characteristics.

Pre-admission assessments were completed face to face by the leadership team. Care plans and risk assessments were developed using information from people, relatives and professionals, and reviewed within 72 hours of admission to ensure they reflected current needs. Where people were unable to express their wishes, staff involved relatives and professionals in decision-making.

Staff worked in partnership with people, relatives and professionals to assess and respond to changing needs. Healthcare professionals spoke positively about the service, with 1 stating, “They have robust processes in place and are always quick to self-refer if they have any concerns.” Daily meetings and handovers ensured staff remained updated about changes to people’s needs and care plans were reviewed promptly to support safe, consistent and responsive care.

The provider planned and delivered person-centred care and treatment in line with legislation, current evidence-based guidance and best practice standards. People told us they were involved in planning their care and making decisions about what mattered to them. For example, a person’s Parkinson’s medicine regimen was reduced from 4 times daily to twice daily following a review, better supporting their lifestyle while continuing to meet their clinical needs.

Staff worked effectively with healthcare professionals, including community matrons, tissue viability nurses, dietitians and speech and language therapists, to ensure people received appropriate specialist support. Recognised clinical assessment tools were used to monitor risks such as malnutrition and pressure ulcers. This enabled effective management of pressure risks and prevent skin breakdown, including repositioning schedules and pressure-relieving equipment. Medicines and clinical monitoring, including blood testing for people prescribed warfarin, were managed safely and in line with required procedures.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They worked closely with healthcare professionals and other services to ensure people received joined-up, consistent care, with good communication, timely referrals and improved identification of urgent health needs. A member of staff said,” We have a nice bunch of residents and a good team. Everyone helps each other and the nurses are always willing to help.”

We received feedback from 5 health and social care professionals who made regular visits to the service. They spoke very highly of the team as a whole and gave us examples of how well the team worked together. Healthcare professionals told us they had no concerns about how the team supported people’s clinical needs.

A GP practice told us they had a very robust process with Drumconner for regular weekly visits, adding, “They are always prompt at providing information regarding residents needed for review on the Monday round and escalate things in between rounds as appropriate.” Another healthcare professional told us, “The ward round we carry out weekly is an example of good MDT (multi-disciplinary team) practice. In my experience it works really well, the staff are always prepared, the residents receive good medical care.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing in ways that promoted independence, choice and control. Staff encouraged people to live healthier lives by supporting them to eat healthy, nutritious meals, stay hydrated and take part in regular physical activity. People said they were encouraged to engage in activities they enjoyed, which helped them maintain healthy and active lifestyles.

Staff understood the importance of preventing dehydration and malnutrition and supported people in a person-centred way to maintain their health. People told us they had plenty to eat and the food was nutritious and of a good quality. A person said, “I don’t eat a lot. If I don’t like what’s on the menu, I opt for a jacket potato. That’s my choice.” Another person said, “I think the chef is trained by MasterChef. Sometimes it’s very pretty.” We saw people had unlimited access to drinks and snacks which they were able to access independently from the ‘Palm Court’ coffee bar. This was a nice sociable space for people and their visitors to enjoy. A person told us, “I enjoy tea and cake whenever I like, its fabulous.”

People received regular health checks and monitoring to support their ongoing wellbeing and reduce the risk of future health concerns. Staff worked closely with people to reduce anxiety around healthcare appointments and treatment. For example, a person said they had found it difficult to prepare for a hospital scan. Staff arranged for the GP to explain the process and answer their concerns, which helped them feel reassured and able to attend the appointment. The person told us, “I was willing to go ahead with it after she’d talked it over with me. I couldn’t fault her.”

The provider regularly monitored people’s care and treatment to ensure outcomes remained positive and people received safe, responsive and consistent support. Care records showed the registered manager and clinical lead routinely reviewed people’s care and wellbeing, with any changes recorded, shared with staff and acted upon promptly. Where further medical support was needed, referrals and advice were sought without delay.

People and visitors told us staff knew them well and responded quickly when support needs changed. A visitor said, “I’m advised if she sees a GP. I’m kept up to date with any health things.” A person also told us, “I had a difficult appointment to attend, and they were very careful about which carer they sent with me.”

Staff used recognised monitoring tools, regular wellbeing checks and everyday conversations to identify changes in people’s physical health, emotional wellbeing or preferences at an early stage. Care plans were updated promptly to reflect people’s changing needs and information was clearly shared during handovers and team meetings to ensure a joined-up approach to care. This helped reduce the risk of deterioration and supported people to maintain their independence, comfort and wellbeing.

The provider supported people to understand their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. We observed and people told us staff consistently asked people for consent before providing care and understood people had the right to make choices and refuse support if they wished.

Where people lacked capacity to make specific decisions, staff followed clear and well-recorded best interest decision-making processes and involved families and relevant professionals to ensure people’s wishes and preferences were considered. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act and how to support people with fluctuating capacity or more complex needs, seeking additional advice from community nurses and specialist teams when needed.

Records showed best interest decisions were made for areas such as accommodation, personal care, moving and handling and medicines management, including covert medicines. Where medicines were administered covertly this had been assessed and agreed with healthcare professionals and regularly reviewed.