Badgers Holt Residential 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. This key question has been rated good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (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.

Relatives told us they were involved in care for their family members.A relative said, “We were involved in the initial assessment. A week after [person] was admitted to the service.”

Staff confirmed they supported people to be involved in designing their care. A staff member said, “All residents, where able, are encouraged to be very involved in their care planning. Where this is not possible, we encourage family to help to ensure that all their wants needs and wishes are voiced so that we can ensure we are helping them in the best way. This could be; the time of day they like to shower, that they like to have breakfast in bed before receiving personal care in the morning. If they have any interests or hobbies that are important to them so that we can help them to continue this where possible. Would they like special foods/drinks that we can get for them. etc. We want our residents to feel like they can be their own authentic selves, and we support this in any way possible.” This supported person centred care delivery.

Preadmission assessments were completed face to face to establish if the service could meet the person’s individual needs.

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.

People were complimentary about the food at the service. The menu in the service was seasonal and discussed at residents’ meetings. A person told us, “Food is very good. They give choices re food. They even do last minute changes if necessary.” A relative said, “[Person] had meals on wheels and stopped eating them. The food in the service is fresh and not frozen. [Person] is eating very well.”

People’s preferences and allergies were clearly recorded in their care plans. The service organised a fish and chips to be delivered every Friday. When required, people were referred to the speech and language therapist (SALT). SALT undertake assessments of swallowing or communication difficulties for people with medical, neurological and surgical conditions. The service used a dysphagia screening tool and were vigilant when supporting people with their food. The service assessed the risks to the health and safety of people who had individual risk assessments in place.

The staff working in the kitchen knew SALT requirements and dietary needs of each person living at the service.

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.

Relatives told us they were kept informed and involved in their family member’s care. Relatives and people were satisfied information was shared appropriately within the service and outside to healthcare professionals as required.

Staff had access to the information they needed to deliver people’s care and support. The service used an electronic system, and staff told us this made information easily accessible.

The provider shared information with health and social care professionals to support care planning and delivery.

Feedback from health and social care professionals was positive. A professional said, “We have consistently found the team to be highly attentive to their residents’ care needs. Our working relationship with them is positive and collaborative.”

Where there were concerns about people’s wellbeing, appropriate referrals were made, for example to the GP. When treatment and guidance had been received from healthcare professionals, this was incorporated into people’s care plans and shared with the staff team at the handover.

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People told us they had access to health care professionals when required. A relative said, “We are over the moon with how [person] is treated and looked after.”

People were encouraged and supported to make healthier dietary choices to help promote and maintain their health.

Staff told us they had access to people’s information to plan the delivery of their care and support.

The service had effective working relationships with health and social care professionals. One told us, “Communication with us is clear, precise, and pitched to articulate their concerns and expectations without either unnecessary demand or avoidance. They focus on the patient as much as the problem. There is good dialogue, and not a demand/request/response style expectation.”

Visits from health and social care professionals were recorded and accessible on the electronic system used by the service. This meant staff had an overview of people’s health needs and involvement from healthcare professionals.

The service offered trips out on a minibus. This supported people’s wellbeing.

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.

Relatives told us staff communicated with them regularly and when there were changes to people’s care needs. A relative said, “I can ring and talk to any member of the team, and they are aware of [person], how they are and what they have been doing.”

The manager confirmed people’s weight and skin integrity were monitored at a frequency that met their assessed needs, and information was shared with healthcare professionals when appropriate. The electronic system used by the service supported regular audits of people’s health needs. This supported staff to identify and respond to changes in people’s health and wellbeing in a timely manner.

Staff monitored people’s health needs and recorded it in their daily notes. Staff knew people well and were able to recognise early signs of them becoming unwell.

The service did not always work in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The principles of the MCA were not always being followed.

Mental capacity assessments or best interest decisions were not always carried out in line with best practice.For example, the assessments were not decision specific or reviewed regularly. Some people did not have the necessary assessments in place. In response to our feedback the manager started the process of reviewing documentation relating to people’s capacity. The manager had identified the need for additional training in relation to MCA before our inspection, and this was being sourced.

People told us they were treated with respect and were offered choices.

Staff told us they knew people well and always asked for consent before providing care. Comments included, “Choices that people make are respected, but if staff have any concerns then advice is sought from management or the GP”, “I support people with making choices by always ensuring I give them options and allowing them to make their own decisions”, “We always assume the residents have capacity until proven otherwise and even then they are involved in the choices of their care and it is as person centred as possible”, and “Day to day I ensure that I provide and support everyone with their own choices. I do this through things such as their outfit for the day, by giving them a choice, I am promoting their independence and their self-confidence. You should never assume that anyone lacks capacity unless it has been deemed otherwise.”

Where necessary, people with legal authority or responsibility can make decisions within the requirements of the MCA. The provider had an overview of who can lawfully act on a person’s behalf.