Vine House Older Persons Residence

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

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.

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.

People told us they were able to visit before deciding to move to the home. Where this was not possible, managers met with the person to be sure of their needs. A staff member told us. “We have extra staff on when a new person arrives, we work with them and their family and fill out a “this is me” form. We already have the basis but then this colours in the details, we really can get to know their likes and dislikes and nuances.”

Care plans showed details of people’s needs and wishes.

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.

People and families told us they were involved in planning their care and treatment. One relative told us, “The communication is very good, I am always asked what I think.”

People’s plans were person-centred. Staff told us the details in the plans reflected the needs and wishes of each person. For example, the type of music a person enjoys and the topics they like to talk about. One staff told us about monitoring a person’s food and hydration needs, “It’s part of the care plan and depends on the person.

Records identified meetings with people and families took place and contained relevant information.

The provider worked well across teams and homes 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 homes.

The provider and staff gave examples of how they worked with people and families to support a person to move to a different home. This included sharing of agreed information, being flexible to the pace of the move and having 2 staff the person knew well go with them to support the transfer. Consideration was given to making sure the person’s treasured possessions made the trip with them and the rest of their belongings followed on.

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 staff told us they supported people to seek support from relevant health professionals. Staff supported people to attend appointments at the hospital for example, where the person requested. Relatives told us, staff made sure they had the relevant information if they were supporting their relative to an appointment.

The home provided homemade food and we saw plenty of fruit and vegetables on offer. People told us they appreciated the food.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it.

Outcomes of people’s health and well-being were monitored by staff; however, this had not always translated into updating guidance for staff. Care plans and risk assessments were not always consistently reviewed and updated to reflect people’s changing needs and to ensure that safe and effective support continued. This was in the process of being addressed at the time of our visit.

Staff did know people well and were able to identify changes quickly, the wider recorded monitoring by leaders was lacking in substance. The care monitoring system had functions which run reports to help identify trends which were not being used at the time of our visit. This area is discussed further in the well-led section of the report.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

The provider did not always ensure that people’s capacity was assessed appropriately and safely, in line with relevant guidance and legislation. The provider had not always undertaken specific mental capacity assessments to determine people’s capacity to make specific decisions about their care. For example, consent to care and treatment. Leaders informed us that a GP would conduct a capacity assessment, but leaders were not clear that whilst health professionals lead health decisions, managers and staff can carry out other decision specific assessments. Managers assured us they would seek further knowledge and carry out MCA assessments where appropriate in the future.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. People were protected when issues around capacity had been identified. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) referrals were made to relevant authorities in some cases. However, leaders had not been aware a DoLS referral which was needed had not been made.

Before the end of the assessment, appropriate MCA assessments had been carried out and requests for referrals to DoLS had been made where needed.

Staff provided care within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People’s views and wishes are taken into account when their care is planned and our conversations with them confirm this.

The home has some CCTV cameras in place. This has been reviewed and were advertised to people before they are admitted. There were consent documents in place. The cameras did not cover people’s private spaces.