Valley Lodge 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

The provider has now met the previous breach from the last inspection in relation to consent.

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 service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People and relatives told us people's care needs were assessed before they moved in to the home and were then regularly reviewed. A relative told us how they had sat with the manager prior to their loved one moving in and discussed their loved one’s life and preferences. They commented, “I remember being struck by them [staff] putting the person first, then the care.”

The registered manager confirmed 2 staff completed people's initial assessment either with the person and/or their relatives. People's records showed their care needs had been assessed by staff using a variety of clinical assessment tools, which reflected best practice guidance.

Staff told us they had received communication training and explained how they had supported a person who communicated non-verbally using pictures.

The service 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.

People and relatives were happy with the meals. People’s care plans included person-centred information about their nutrition and hydration needs. People’s records included information about whether they required a modified diet or drinks which were provided.

People who were at risk of weight loss were monitored and staff provided them with high calorie snacks across the course of the day. The provider had processes in place to ensure staff were made aware of who was at risk from weight loss or needed to be prompted with their fluids.

Staff had a good understanding of people’s care needs. Staff had completed training in relation to respecting people’s beliefs, needs and preferences about food and drink and promoting an inclusive and positive dining experience. Staff understood their training on modified diets and nutrition and ensured people received suitable meals and drinks.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people.

People and relatives said they felt staff worked effectively with other services. Relatives felt they were regularly updated about their loved one's welfare. A relative commented, “They keep us well informed.”

The GP held a weekly clinic so any clinical issues for people could be reviewed regularly. Staff worked with a variety of health and social care teams and any guidance provided was reflected in people’s care plans. External partners spoken with reported there was good communication from staff.

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People and relatives reported overall people’s health needs were met well and said people saw the district nurses as required. A relative said their loved one needed an eye test. The registered manager was not aware of this need but told us the optician visited regularly and they would arrange for this to be addressed. Staff had completed training in oral healthcare for people.

Staff used recognised tools to take and monitor people’s physical health observations and this enabled them to recognise any early signs of deterioration for people which needed to be escalated.

People's care plans contained details of their medical history and informed staff of any relevant information such as if they had diabetes.

The service 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.

Relatives reported good outcomes for people from their care. Relatives told us their loved ones had put weight on since admission and that people were encouraged to mix and not to become socially isolated.

The registered manager told us they measured people’s outcomes in relations to factors such as whether people were a good weight, if they were joining in activities, having a good quality of life and enjoyed good staff interactions. The monthly provider report included an evaluation of outcomes for people in relation to various clinical measures of their well-being.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these.

The provider and registered manager have made sufficient improvements since the last inspection and the service is no longer in breach of consent.

People who had the capacity to consent to their care had signed their consent. Where staff assessed people lacked capacity to make specific decisions about their care, legal requirements had been followed, and the outcomes of mental capacity act assessments and best interest decisions had been recorded.

The provider ensured where relatives held power of attorney for health and welfare, or finances relevant checks had been completed to assure themselves of their validity.

Relatives told us they had been involved in decisions about their loved one's care, including being consulted about do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions. Staff had completed training on the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and had access to the providers’ policies. Staff understood its application in their day-to-day work.