Ingleby 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.

Improvements had been made in relation to good governance and records relating to people’s health and communication had improved.

This service scored 62 (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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Preadmission assessments were completed. The interim home manager recognised the need to ensure these were completed to ensure people’s needs could be met. There continued to be limited evidence that people, and appropriate others were involved in assessing and discussing their needs.

Recognised tools such as MUST and Waterlow were used to assess people’s needs in relation to nutritional risk and skin integrity. Information in relation to communication needs were assessed and documented.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

Care records included some information on people’s likes and preferences. However, sections titled ‘Important to me’ were often not completed or had minimal information. There was no evidence people, and their legal representatives were involved in discussions around what was important to them.

Improvements had been made in relation to the recording of people’s food and fluid intake. However, records of people’s fluid intake showed it was low and there was limited evidence action had been taken in relation to this. There had been no impact on people.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. There continued to be no evidence people, and their legal representatives were involved in decision making about their care. The regional manager said, “We are moving through the element of reviewing [care records] but not at the point of including the person or their representative in this.”

Staff worked well together and involved other healthcare professionals as needed, acting upon their guidance and advice. One person said, “The staff always seem to work well together.”

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.

Monitoring of people’s nutritional needs had improved, and action had been taken when it had been identified that there was a change in a person’s weight. Staff had managed one person’s skin integrity needs well which had resulted in healed wounds.

The staff 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 monitoring of people’s health care needs had improved since the last inspection. District nursing teams were positive about the staff and said, “Skin integrity is on the ball. Referrals are made when required, while they are waiting for us to come out, they start protocols. That’s the sign of a good home.”

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

Staff involved people in day-to-day decisions about their care. One person said, “The carers always ask me what I want, it’s nice to have the choice.”

Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) had been applied for. However, capacity assessments had not been completed by the staff prior to submitting the application. The deputy manager said, “They were not in place previously, we are slowly putting them in place.”