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 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 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 were assessed and care delivered in line with them. People and families were involved in their care planning and reviewing of their care and support. Initial assessments were completed on all areas of personal care and support. People we spoke with told us they were involved in reviews about their care and treatment.

We observed staff at mealtimes who were following care plans when serving and supporting people with their food. Kitchen staff had access to people’s dietary needs and had good knowledge of people’s allergies and dietary requirements.

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.

People’s risks of pressure damage and malnutrition were assessed using nationally recognised tools. This included the Waterlow score for skin integrity and the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) for monitoring weight. People were weighed regularly, and staff sought medical advice when there were significant changes in dietary intake or weight. For those at increased risk of malnutrition or who required a specialist diet or fluid plan, staff completed food and fluid charts to help ensure intake was monitored accurately and remained in line with individual needs.

We observed staff serving lunch and found this was organised and a pleasant experience for people. The weekly menu was available in the dining room. We saw people were offered drinks and snacks in-between meals and had access to a hydration station, where they could help themselves to drinks. People told us meals were nice and commented they had plenty to eat and drink.

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. Systems were in place to support staff to share and pass on information about people’s care to enable them to offer consistent care. The management team and staff completed daily flash meetings and handover records and worked well as a team.

The service made referrals for people where additional support was required. The service met regularly with the local GP practice to share and review people’s health. Where people required medical appointments, the service liaised with family and other health professionals and ensured a multi-disciplinary approach was followed.

Staff told us they felt supported by the management team. One staff member said, “A new manager as just started, so I don’t know them yet. But the last manager was approachable, welcoming and knowledgeable. They were fab.”

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 health was consistently monitored to promote their wellbeing. Care plans and risk assessments were comprehensive and contained detailed information. They were reviewed regularly to keep them accurate and aligned with people’s current needs.

People had access to healthcare professionals and staff ensured their advice was followed. Referrals had been made to professionals regarding things such as, falls, mobility, nutrition and continence.

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’s outcomes were documented in care plans and showed actions taken to ensure these were met. For example, people who were prone to tissue damage, had appropriate repositioning plans in place to ensure their skin remained as healthy as possible.

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

People’s care records contained consent forms, which covered areas such as consent to care and treatment. Where people lacked the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves, decisions had been made in their best interests in accordance with the MCA by those acting on their behalf.

We found the manager and staff were aware of their responsibilities in respect of consent and involving people as much as possible in day-to-day decisions. Staff were also aware that where people lacked capacity to make a specific decision then best interests would be considered.

The manager kept a tracker of every person who was subject to a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisation and when it was due for review. This was also reflected in people's care records. Risk assessments had been completed when a person was subject to restrictive interventions, such as bed rails.

Staff interviews and training records showed up‑to‑date learning on MCA and DoLS. Staff explained how they sought people’s consent verbally before providing care and explained what they intended to do, before carrying out any care tasks.

We observed staff giving people choices and enabling them to make decisions. Where people were unable to advocate for themselves or had no representative that could advocate on their behalf, they were supported to access advocacy and related services, if required. An advocate is someone who can offer support for people who lack capacity to make specific important decisions.