Saxondale Nursing 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 good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 50 (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 people's care plans were not always up to date. Inconsistent information was viewed which related to the monitoring of people’s health and care needs. Some plans and risk assessments lacked sufficient detail to ensure appropriate care was delivered.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. We saw that, while recognised assessment tools were in place these had not been used consistently to assess and monitor people’s needs and risks. One relative said, “I am concerned about the fact they have only just done a bed rail assessment when [relatives] been there a year.”

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. They did not always share their assessment of people’s needs when people moved between different services. Systems had not been effectively implemented to ensure effective communication. The provider told us systems had been recently introduced to improve communication between the team. For example, daily flash meetings were now in place and staff had attended team meetings, this had improved how the team communicated on a day-to-day basis, including any concerns and current care needs.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. For some people, their support plans contained inaccurate or incomplete information which risked them receiving a lack of continuity of, or inappropriate, care in the event they needed medical treatment.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. People’s care was not always clearly monitored. Records to show what people had eaten, drank, when they were repositioned, and care interventions were not always completed clearly or accurately by staff. Some records indicated gaps in people’s care interventions. These gaps had not been investigated which meant the provider was not always able to assess whether people’s needs had been met.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment. Improvements were required to ensure systems were in place to gain consent where appropriate for all aspects of people’s care and treatment. For example, we found people did not have access to call bells from their rooms, we found no records of assessments of capacity or best interest decisions in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) in relation to this decision. This meant we could not be assured that service users who could have safely used call bells had been prevented from using them.