Hallmark Angmering Grange Luxury 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 were involved in their care, treatment and support, based on best available evidence. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Good. This meant people were supported to live healthier lives 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.

Processes for assessing people’s needs were robust. Pre-admission assessments took place to ensure people’s needs could be met. Leaders visited people to complete a full assessment of their needs prior to admission. People and their relatives told us they were involved in the planning and reviewing of their care. Relatives told us, “We had an introductory meeting where we discussed my loved ones needs” and “I feel fully involved in the care plan.”

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.

Processes were in place which showed people’s needs had been identified and continued to be reviewed and amended. For example, food and fluid charts were used to monitor nutrition and dehydration for people who needed this support. Where people were at risk, staff worked with external professionals to ensure good outcomes. Staff were aware of people who had specific nutritional requirements and supported people accordingly. A relative said, “When my loved one first moved in, they refused to eat and lost a lot of weight. The staff have worked really hard to encourage my loved one to eat and I have seen an improvement.”

The provider had systems in place to work well across teams and services to support people. However, they were not always effective.

The service did not always have effective communication systems in place, both internally and externally. Staff told us they were concerned by poor communication from leaders to concerns they had raised and described this as “demoralising”. A staff member said, “Communication is abysmal and makes me feel unvalued.” Professionals told us, “Unfortunately, there are frequent times when we have tried to contact the service and have either not been able to get through or we have not received a call back after leaving a message. This has been discussed with management and is currently being looked at” and “I email them as I have found this is the most effective method.” The provider started making changes to drive improvements. This included a review of communication of both internal and external processes. However, this will take time to embed.

People told us they had access to a variety of different external services. Staff discussed any issues or changes in support needs during handovers. Staff knew how to escalate concerns to external healthcare professionals. Records of appointments and changes in support were recorded.

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.

Leaders and staff contacted healthcare professionals when people were unwell or if there were concerns about their well-being. A relative told us, “The GP visits weekly and if the staff had any concerns they would ring the doctor.” People received regular healthcare appointments such as chiropody and dental. Leaders told us there was regular contact from the local GP practice. They told us visits from healthcare professionals were prompt in response to any concerns raised. Healthcare professionals told us that staff contacted them appropriately when they had concerns. One healthcare professional said, “The residents that I have reviewed and supported, I feel that appropriate actions were identified in a timely way and measures put in place to monitor and support going forward.”

The provider had systems to monitor people’s care and treatment. However, staff did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Staff did not always complete daily recordings with the detail required to monitor people’s care. For example, repositioning people to minimise risks of developing pressure sores. Leaders did not always have an effective system of the oversight of people’s daily records to ensure all incidents were recorded, investigated and appropriate actions taken to prevent further risks. This meant not all people had consistently positive outcomes. While the provider had an action plan in place, it had not identified all of the issues found during the assessment. The provider has since taken additional actions to address the areas highlighted. However, this will take time to embed.

People’s care plans identified their care needs, preferences about their support and how staff should ensure these were met. People’s care plans contained information on specific health conditions. People and relatives were involved in the reviews of their care plans.

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

People’s care plans recorded their consent to care. Where people did not have the capacity to consent to their care, we saw best interest decisions were made with appropriate representatives included as part of the meeting. People had Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) in place where required. Staff had training in mental capacity. They were aware of the importance of consent and supporting people to make decisions. Staff ensured that people were given choices throughout the day, and they gained consent before delivering care.