Pine Tree Court 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has changed to Requires Improvement.

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 58 (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 they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

We found although assessments had been completed, once admitted, staff were not always trained appropriately to meet those needs. We also found where people living at the service had a learning disability, the provider was not working in line with ‘Right Support, right care and right culture’ guidance. Staff had not received training in supporting people with a learning disability.

The provider usually 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.[ST1] However, as outlined in other areas of the report, people with a learning disability were not being supported in line with statutory guidance.

People and relatives were involved in creating and reviewing their care records. Care records included information about people’s history and families. There were meetings held with people living in the service to gain their views. Relatives’ meetings were also held regularly. People were assessed using nationally recognised tools and managers had oversight of people’s physical well-being. One relative told us, “Coming into care has done [relative] the world of good. [Their] personal hygiene is much improved, at home they weren’t showering or eating and now they’re up. This is the best place they could be.”

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.

The provider and managers did not always foster positive relationships with partner organisations. We found although medical referrals were made appropriately, there had been several safeguarding concerns which had not been reported to CQC or the local authority. We also found the provider was not fully supporting the local GP surgery to obtain informed consent for immunisations of people living at the service. We found the provider had not ensured they spoke with people about immunisations at times which were best for them, and they did not involve people’s relatives. This meant people were not supported to be able to make decisions on whether they would like to have immunisations. We also found instances where there were miscommunications between staff and health care professionals which resulted in inconsistent care. We spoke to a visiting healthcare professional who told us, “Sometimes there appears to be a lack of historical information and daily notes don’t always contain enough information that we need.”

The service did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. The service did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People were able to see the GP regularly and staff supported people to attend hospital appointments. Healthcare professionals told us referrals were made in a timely manner, and we saw evidence people were supported to have appropriate support from different healthcare teams. One visiting healthcare professional told us, “Weight management recordings have recently been put in place for one individual. Relevant professionals have been involved.” However, we could not be assured people were being supported to live healthier lives as the provider was failing to provide support with immunisations.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and

consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Staff completed daily records for people and recorded their meals and how much they had to drink. Records for wound management were in place and people had appropriate pressure relieving equipment. However, we found 1 person had not had a medical need escalated in a timely manner to nurses, which delayed appropriate treatment.

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

We observed people being asked for consent before being assisted with personal care and with assistance with eating and drinking. Staff told us about the importance of gaining consent from people. We saw records from staff which showed when people refused support staff would leave them and try again later.