Station House

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 remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 63 (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.

The registered manager told us they undertook face to face assessments before people moved to the home. Where people came for assessment, recovery and rehabilitation they had made some improvements to their pre-admission forms to gather effective information as part of their initial assessment. Staff used various assessment tools and worked with other health and social care professionals to ensure people received appropriate care and treatment.

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.

Staff developed care plans from initial assessments. The management team had been working with staff to improve the quality and consistency of the care plans; several had been re-written. The registered manager told us people, and their relatives were involved in the development of their care plans.

Systems were in place to ensure people received food and drinks in line with their assessed needs. However, records were not fully up to date about people’s dietary needs. A recent clinical meeting had identified the need for a person to have a fortified diet in response to some weight loss; however, this was not clearly recorded in their care plan and care staff spoken with were unaware of this recent change. Where people ate in bed, staff needed to ensure they were always assisted to sit-up fully, as we found this was not the case for one person.

Overall, people were satisfied with the food on offer and were given choices. However, some people weren’t keen on some options and said at times hot food was “tepid”. Menu improvements had been discussed at a recent resident meeting, and actions had been taken following a mealtime audit to improve people’s experiences.

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.

Staff told us communication was effective throughout the staff team, and they were kept up to date with any changes through daily handover and other meetings. People’s health needs were discussed in regular clinical meetings and health professionals were contacted where necessary. Staff told us there was good teamwork. One person said, “We pull together and work together.”

The management team took part in a monthly meeting with the local authority to review the assessment aspect of service and address any issues. They also took part in weekly multi-disciplinary meetings to discuss and review people’s needs and progress.

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.

Staff referred people for assessment and input from other professionals where necessary. For example, people had been referred to dietitians and specialist nurses. The GP undertook weekly visits to the home to review people’s health needs. A relative told us, “The home has arranged a chiropodist, dentist and an optician, (name) has since had new glasses.”

The provider worked with local health and social care commissioners to provide rehabilitation and recovery places for people coming out of hospital. As part of this, a therapy team was based at the home, we saw physiotherapists supporting people’s recovery.

Activity staff also arranged various activities to support people’s health and well-being such as exercise sessions.

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

There was a ‘Resident of the day’ system in place, where staff reviewed all areas of people’s care plans monthly. Whilst records showed some people had been consulted with as part of this, several people said they were unaware of these reviews. For some people these had not been carried out monthly. The management team were aware of this, and some recent improvements were in progress and being embedded.

Staff effectively monitored people’s clinical needs. The provider had various systems of oversight were in place, including daily and weekly meetings. The management team had recently provided further guidance and oversight to staff in relation to the effective management of wounds.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

Staff understood the need to gain consent from people. However, they had not always worked in line with the Mental Capacity Act. Where decisions had been made for people who lacked capacity, records did not always demonstrate mental capacity assessments had been undertaken or best interest decisions recorded. For example, where a person had a door sensor in place to monitor their movements due to potential risks. People’s rights were however protected as Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications had been appropriately submitted to the local authority where required.

The management team had already identified the need for staff training, which was in progress and they were in the process of making the necessary improvements to ensure procedures were followed in line with the MCA.