Byrnhill Grove Registered 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.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (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 was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Comprehensive assessments were completed by the manager and involved the person to understand their needs. Where appropriate, family members and other involved health or social care professionals were included in the pre assessment. Visits to the home by people or family members prior to admission were welcomed as part of this process.

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. Care plans and related records showed consideration and reflection of current legislation and best practice guidance. Nationally recognised assessment tools were in use such as for skin integrity and risk of malnutrition. People were happy with the meals they received. A person told us, “We like the food. It’s very good and there’s such a lot of choice.” The home provided a range of activities, including both mental and physical stimulation.

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. The management team understood how to seek support from health and social care staff when required. An external professional was positive about the service and felt able to make suggestions to the manager and said their professional advice was followed. Care staff said they received a handover at the start of each shift, which provided them with all necessary information about people. Staff described a positive team working environment.

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. Care plans included information about people’s medication and past medical history. Care staff and training records confirmed training was provided for specific medical needs. Care staff understood action they were to take in medical emergencies e.g. signs of stroke or if a person may have a urinary tract infection (UTI). Staff were able to describe the actions required if a person had seizures and records showed this was followed as detailed in the relevant care plan. We heard a person being encouraged by a staff member to undertake some walking exercise to help maintain their mobility.

The provider’s systems to routinely monitor people’s care and treatment had not always ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent. The provider had systems in place to ensure staff were recording people’s food and fluid intake and when they had a bowel action. However, as detailed in the safe section of this report, action was not always taken when monitoring indicated a change in a person’s needs. People’s weight was monitored at a frequency in line with their risk. Care staff were able to describe changes in skin condition, which meant action could be taken before more serious damage occurred.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these. People told us they were able to make choices about how and when care was provided and that if they declined care this was offered again at a later time. For example, when asked if staff asked for consent, a person told us, “Yes, they do.” Care staff understood their responsibilities in relation to consent and that people had the right to refuse the care being offered, in which case they said they would try later or ask a different staff member to try. Where people were unable to make informed decisions such as in respect of medication or aspects of their care, decision specific Mental Capacity Act assessments and best interest decisions were in place. A family member told us, “They ask (person) all the time. (Person) can make day-to-day decisions about what they want to eat and so on, but if it’s more than that, they ask me.”