Rest Haven 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 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 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.

Before people came to live at the service a full assessment of their needs was completed to ensure they could be supported safely. People's care plans contained detailed, clear and consistent information for staff. Relatives were positive about the pre-admission process.

The provider had a ‘Family Admission Pack’ in place to support relatives and those close to people during the admission to the service. This contained documents such as an information pack about the service, a ‘My life’ section for people and families to complete together, a ‘Family end of life’ to ensure people and their relatives were actively involved in the admission process. Relatives we spoke with told us how they had been well supported by the service during care admission processes for new care placements which had been very emotive for them.

People were supported in line with current best practice.People’s needs were continually monitored and further assessed where required. Any changes in people’s needs were shared with other agencies and relevant healthcare professionals when required.

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.

We saw evidence the diverse range of people’s needs had been assessed, including their communication needs, and this was documented in a person-centred way, using nationally recognised tools where required.

Staff had received relevant training, including in dementia care and diabetes to ensure people’s needs were met. Training was also provided in areas such as oral health care and dysphagia (swallowing difficulty). This meant care and treatment was delivered with current evidence based guidance enabling positive outcomes for people.

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 worked well together to deliver coordinated care and support to people. There were effective systems in place to ensure information was shared appropriately through handovers and meetings. There were also head of department meetings to ensure key messages were communicated. Care plans were easily accessible to staff. All staff spoke positively about their colleagues, the registered manager and other senior staff.

Where required, the service made appropriate referrals to external health and social care professionals. We received limited feedback from the external professionals we contacted, however 1 told us, “Communication with the home was consistently clear and timely, both via email and telephone.”

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 were knowledgeable about people’s specific health conditions and used guidance from healthcare professionals to ensure care was appropriate and safe. When required, people had involvement from healthcare professionals. There was weekly contact with a local GP who the service frequently communicated with. Where a more urgent referral was made, a paramedic working in partnership with the local GP surgery would attend. They provided triage and where necessary would escalate concerns.

We received positive feedback about the food provided at the service. There was a large selection of meal choices available every day for people to choose from. We saw fresh fruit and snacks were available to people throughout the day together with a choice of hot and cold drinks.

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.

The systems and oversight in place were effective in ensuring people received care focused on achieving positive outcomes. People, where possible, were involved in regular care reviews. Relatives told us they were involved in reviews.

There were monitoring systems and audits in place to monitor people’s health. These audits included monitoring outcomes in areas such as continence, weight monitoring, oral hygiene and activities. Care records were regularly reviewed and included detailed information on what to look out for if the person became unwell.

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

Staff had received training in relation to The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), which provides a legal framework for making decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The registered manager and staff had a clear understanding of the MCA. Staff could tell us how they applied the MCA in the care and support they provided to people.

Mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions had been recorded for certain people in relation to certain aspects of their care, for example the use of a pressure mat to monitor people’s movement. Where people had a Lasting Power of Attorney in place, this was clearly recorded. During our assessment visit, we observed staff consistently seeking people’s consent before providing support or assisting with activities.