Sloe Hill Residential 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 newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

Mealtime experience was pleasant, and people were offered snacks and drinks freely.

People’s needs were assessed prior to them moving into the service. There were regular reviews with outcomes monitored.

People were supported in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005).

People were supported to live healthier lives. There was effective working together to help ensure people received the right care.

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.

People’s needs were assessed before moving to the service and they felt the staff were able to meet their needs. People and their relatives told us they had enough information and support to ensure the move into the home and the transition went well. A relative told us, “The staff have been marvellous and that includes the initial arrangements for our visits to view Sloe Hill. When we first viewed ‘the general feel’ we got, in even a short time, was very good. We were given a tour of the communal areas and also shown a couple of rooms too. We also spoke to some residents and the feedback from them was very reassuring. We saw another home that day but just knew immediately that Sloe Hill would be the best choice by far. [A member of the management team] had taken the trouble to telephone me, prior to [person’s] visit and again afterwards, to reassure me. Both the staff and residents gave them a warm welcome, which was lovely, and we felt quite happy when we left for our journey home that afternoon.”

Staff told us people’s needs were always reviewed and outcomes shared. A staff member said, “We have a regular face to face handover both at the beginning and end of the shift. It is very thorough. Even though handovers are recorded on [electronic system], we have a verbal discussion about each resident. We also discuss tasks that need doing which the day staff have not been able to complete.”

Care plans were developed from a preadmission assessment, and through people’s involvement, which included important health, support information as well as people’s preferences and backgrounds.

People and relatives said they had enough to eat and drink, sufficient choice and support. A person said, “The food is good, I wanted smaller portions, and they did that for me.”

Staff were working in accordance with planned care needs. The mealtime experience was pleasant, and food looked and smelt appetising. Staff were chatting with people, explaining what the meal was, and people were sat up for a safe eating position. We saw people’s likes and dislikes were known and staff supported this.

There were mealtime experience audits in place and monitoring of people’s dietary needs, preferences and weights. Fortified meals were provided for those who needed them.

People, and their relatives, told us staff knew them well.

Staff told us they worked with health and social care professionals to ensure people had the right care and support. This included mental health teams, district nurses and GPs.

The local authority did not fund anyone living at the service so there had been no visits carried out. They had not received any recent information about the service. The service worked with healthcare professionals to ensure people received the right care and support.

Feedback from a visiting healthcare professional stated, “There is always a senior member of staff that I am able to talk to. I find the care staff to be engaged and helpful with care planning. They are forthcoming with information, and I feel that they know their residents well. There are some residents at Sloe Hill that are very particular with their routines and care needs, and the staff are respectful in meeting the needs of those residents. I find that the care is resident centred and individualised.”

People’s care plans included a record of information obtained on their admission to the home. This was transferred into and informed the care plan.

People and their relatives told us they could see a health or social care professional when needed. They also said they had plenty to do to fill their time. A person said, “We had flower arranging last week.” Another person said, “There is a gentleman’s club I can go to at [other provider location].” A relative said, “There are many organised activities to encourage residents to join in and mix together if they wish to with no pressure applied.”

Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about people and their care and support needs.

Most people were up from their beds. Some people had chosen to stay in bed. Staff were going in routinely to support people to check on them and see if they needed anything. People in communal areas were being encouraged to join in with activities to help encourage movement and socialisation.

People’s care needs were reviewed regularly and in between if needs changed.

Staff were able to explain how they monitored people’s health and wellbeing. They were aware of what action to take if needed. A staff member said, “We are all trained to report any changes to the resident’s health or any care needs raising any concerns immediately to our seniors. Everything is documented appropriately. The care plans are then updated to resolve the concern. We are provided with any equipment or extra support if needed.” We saw staff noticed if people didn’t seem themselves and checked on them.

There were systems in place to have overview of people’s care needs, wounds and infections for example, and this included progress updates.

People told us they were able to make their own choices. We observed people being able to move around the home freely. Relatives felt people had their choices respected.

Staff were aware of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). They were able to tell us how they incorporated the principles of the MCA in their day-to-day roles. For example, ensuring choices were offered to people and respected by staff.

People’s care plans included discussions relating to capacity assessments, which detailed how capacity for the decision was assessed. Plans were clear where people had capacity to make day to day decisions, but more support was needed for more complex decisions. There was a record when Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations were requested. A DoLS authorisations tracker was in place so the progress of applications could be monitored.