St Mary's Continuing Care

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 67 (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 moving to the service, a pre-assessment was carried out by the registered manager or senior member of staff. These covered risks to people and their needs were assessed to ensure the service had the right staff with the right skills to be able to support them. The notes from these meetings went on to form the basis of care plans when people moved into the service. Some care plans lacked detail however the registered manager knew this and was in the process of updating these documents.

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. However, we did find some care plans with out of date information. Staff we spoke with knew people well. Overall, this resulted in positive outcomes for people as staff were able to detect any changes in people’s needs. Despite this there were gaps in some people’s care plans which required improvements.

Overall, the provider worked well across teams and services to support people. However, the provider could not be assured people could move between different areas of the service when their needs changed as some of the care records did not contain accurate information to support people moving between different services. People’s relatives told us they felt confident people’s health needs were met. For example, one person’s relative said, “I am totally confident in the staff I know most of the staff they can read my loved one’s body language when they are not happy the staff do their best to reduce any agitation, there is always plenty of staff on duty and when I visit the staff approach me and give me updates which I appreciate.” One visiting health professional said, “From my time coming here the staff are always available, and I am able access the information I need quickly, and I can see they have discussions with the GP or one of my team”.

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. People and relatives told us the care received from staff met their needs. Staff demonstrated they understood how to deliver evidence-based care and treatment. Staff were able to explain what was important to people and supported people in line with best practice standards. As discussed in the assessment there was some out-of-date information records, however we found staff were knowledgeable and knew if a person’s care and treatment needs had changed.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. However, the care plans were reviewed were not all detailed or individualised and, in some instances, did not reflect the care recorded, reviewed or monitored. The staff we spoke to told us they were committed to providing person centred care and support. Staff told us they had time to spend with people on an individual basis, and we observed this during the assessment.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Staff had received training in mental capacity and consent. All staff we spoke with described how they ensured people were able to make choices and how they supported people who were unable to make decisions due to their cognitive impairment. During the inspection we observed staff asking people for their consent. For example, we observed staff use people’s names and ask them what they would like to do. Peoples loved ones told us, “My loved one isn’t able to make decisions for themselves, the staff are really good at understanding and following my loved one’s gestures, my loved one prefers to sit in the lounge to be with the other residents”” and “If my loved one is unwell, they would call for the GP and let me know if they have any concerns”.