Forrester Court

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 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.

People’s needs, risks and choices were assessed and planned for. People and their representatives told us they were involved in their needs assessments and with compiling their care plans. A family member told us, “When [Name] arrived, there was a fantastic [assessment] meeting.”

People’s care plans contained clear and detailed information, with appropriate use of language, regarding their care needs and the levels of support they required. Care plans also contained information about people’s individual choices and preferences.

Staff reviewed and updated care plans regularly and we saw the home followed a ‘Resident of the Day’ process, which helped make sure everybody had a full review of their care and support on a regular basis. A person commented, “My care plan has recently been updated.”

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.

Staff assessed and planned for people’s nutrition and hydration needs, including dietary and cultural preferences. Some people were at risk of choking and had been assessed by a speech and language therapist (SALT). Staff followed the SALT advice and guidance to make sure people ate and drank safely. A person’s representative told us, “They keep a close eye and give [Name] fortified vitamin drinks.” Staff were responsive and attentive with people and supported them to follow their eating and drinking care plans. People and their representatives were mostly complimentary about the food and made comments such as, “The food seems really good” and “[Name] is well fed.”

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.

There was a collaborative approach in supporting people’s care needs. Staff communicated effectively with other professionals. Referrals to external health and social care professionals were made promptly when needed and care records, as well as observations, confirmed that guidance and recommendations were followed.

All staff we spoke with were open and willing to engage. Staff were knowledgeable about the needs of people living in the home and respectful when discussing people’s care needs.

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.

One unit accommodated people who had been discharged from hospital but needed further assessment of their health and social care needs. Most people in this unit initially needed 24-hour bed-based care. They underwent continuing rehabilitation, while their longer-term care needs were assessed in conjunction with family members and other health and social care professionals. Staff told us that a lot of people’s mobility and overall wellbeing improved during their stay on this unit.

People’s representatives told us the home was very good at recognising and addressing changes in people’s needs, following professional and clinical guidance and taking appropriate action. For example, a representative told us that, following a decline in their loved one’s health they were moved to a different unit. They said, “[Name] is much better off now in the nursing unit.”

Staff supported people to use the gym equipment to improve their physical wellbeing. We saw that some items, such as light weights, were taken to people’s rooms to help them with exercising and strengthening their limbs.

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.

Monitoring tools and records were kept for people’s food and fluid intake, medical conditions, weights and skin conditions. People had regular reviews, and we saw that action was taken quickly when any changes to health needs were identified.

People’s representatives made positive comments about the care reviews and improvements to their loved ones’ health and wellbeing such as, “[Name] has definitely improved since they have been there,” “Recently updated [care plan], which I am really happy with” and, “My [loved one] has vastly improved at this care home.”

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

The provider met the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People told us that staff involved them in all aspects of their daily care, asked for their consent and respected their choices. Staff were knowledgeable about the principles of the MCA and told us they always obtained people’s consent before doing anything for them.

When people lacked the mental capacity to make certain decisions, staff met with relevant and authorised people, to ensure any decisions made, were in the person’s best interests. People’s care records were clear about the decisions people had and did not have capacity to make or consent to.

Mental capacity assessments were completed for people and, when needed, applications for deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS) were made appropriately. We saw that the least restrictive options were used with people and any DoLS conditions were met.