Turner 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 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 frequently reviewed people’s care needs and amended their routines as required. We saw how a person had been fully involved and informed in their care plan review and had written some of the care plan themselves. Any potential admissions to Turner Home were thoroughly assessed and this information formed the basis of people’s care plans and risk assessments.

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. For example, staff followed best practice guidance when completing repositioning charts, food diaries and fluid balance charts. Staff made sure these were in place for people who needed them and were being completed.

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. Visiting health visitors spoke positively about the working relationship they had with staff at Turner Home. They told us they felt people looked safe and well cared for, and staff now followed advice and guidance and had ‘good teamwork, which they highlighted as an improvement in the home.’

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’s future wishes were clearly documented and respected. For example, 1 person expressed a desire to eventually live independently in their own home, and another was being supported to maintain as much independence as possible while living with a sensory impairment. Overall, the promotion of independence was a key focus, with staff encouraging and enabling people to make their own choices. Risk assessments were in place to help reduce potential harm while still allowing individuals to retain control over their lives.

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 were consulted with daily activities and there were numerous additional activities and celebrations which people chose to take part in. We saw photos of people clearly enjoying themselves, and feedback gathered by the provider from people around their daily activities and support was positive. There was involvement with the GPs, Community Psychiatric Nurses [CPN’s] and District Nurses to ensure people’s care and treatment was reviewed and still met their needs.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. This was reviewed yearly or when there was a change in people’s understanding. Where people could not consent, a best interest process was followed. Staff explained how they encouraged people to give consent each day around personal care and entering their rooms. For example, 1 person, who had a sensory impairment, their care plan stated ‘Always announce who you are ‘this is important’ as it enabled the person to decide to give the staff permission to support them. Also, with regards to mealtimes, the person required staff to ‘describe what they were eating.’