Port Regis

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 Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 67 (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 and wellbeing needs with them.

The provider had a process in place to ensure people’s needs were initially assessed and continued to be reviewed. However, this was not always operated robustly. People did not always have all of their holistic needs assessed as described under the ‘involving people to manage risk’ quality statement in the safe domain.

When some people’s needs had changed this had not always been updated in their care records to reflect the care and treatment the person was currently receiving in line with good practice. For example, a person’s care plan stated they needed a sensor mat in place, to alert staff when they were mobilising to check this was done safely. However, the deputy manager told us this was no longer required. There was a risk agency staff or new staff would not know how to support people to effectively meet their current needs.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

Although the service used recognised assessment tools to help identify people’s risks and the level of support they required; some areas of staff practice and service delivery were not always in line with evidence-based good practice and standards. For example, risk assessing and care planning or medicine management. However, staff had worked in partnership with other professionals to seek support to deliver evidence-based care and treatment for people’s physical health and well-being.

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. People and relatives told us the staff were good and the service was well managed.

Handovers took place between shifts to support staff to keep up-to-date and guide the care provided. A staff member said, “At morning handover we go through every resident.”

Staff and professionals told us there had been recent changes to systems and processes which they felt had improved the team working within the service as well as with other professionals and agencies. This meant that any concerns or referrals were picked up and actioned quickly. A professional told us, “Overall, referrals are appropriate and are now more timely…The result has been a reduction in pressure ulcers. The team feels that the carers are now pre-emptive and proactive in the care they deliver."

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 were positive about the service and felt it supported them to live healthier lives. Comments included, “[Staff] do temperature and blood pressure.” And “Staff always tell me about any hospital appointments so I can go with [person’s name].”

People were supported to eat and drink enough to meet their needs. People were complimentary about the food, a person said, “The roast beef is out of this world.” Adjustments were made to ensure people were able to safely eat their meals. A relative told us, “[Person’s name] cannot eat well and has soft food.”

We observed people were offered drinks throughout our inspection. We also observed lunchtime. We saw staff supported a person to eat their meal, staff praised the person and when the meal was finished, they said “we did it”. It was a joint effort between staff and the person.

There were dedicated activities staff who supported people to engage in activities of interest to them. This promoted people’s emotional well-being. A member of staff said, “We tailor activities to people’s individual needs. For example, some people have arthritis or dexterity issues so certain activities in the morning are no good but later in the morning or afternoon once pain relief has kicked in people may be more open to activities.” Staff were mindful of barriers to people’s care and adjusted their approach to ensure people could overcome barriers and achieve good outcomes.

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.

People and relatives told us staff supported them well and some gave examples of improvements they had made since moving into the service. A relative told us, “[Person’s name] has put on weight since [they have] lived here which was a good thing as [person’s name] wasn’t always eating that well. [Person’s name] is weighed regularly.” Another relative told us, “[Person’s name] could not walk at last home and here [Person’s name] walks with [their] Zimmer.” Staff proudly encouraged people to maintain their independence and nutrition and supported them to achieve good outcomes in relation to this.

Staff were aware of any people who required particular aspects of their care to be monitored and supported to improve their overall health, well-being or experience. Staff told us, “[For person’s name] the district nurses comes in twice a week, to do dressings. If we find that anyone has a pressure area then we can call the district nurses direct.” They gave examples of care they provided which had helped to improve people’s skin integrity. For example, a staff member told us about a person who had a wound and they used to turn every 2 hours. They said, “Now we do not need to turn them anymore as the wound has improved."

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

Staff and the management team supported people to make decisions they were able to. When people lacked the capacity to make decisions about aspects of their care, mental capacity assessments were completed and best interest meetings held to ensure decisions about people’s care were made in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

The registered manager told us they used a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) tracker to ensure, where people lacked capacity and decisions to deprive them of their liberty had been made in their best interest, DoLs applications were made and renewed as required.