Gateford Hill 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.

This is the first full assessment for this service. This key question has been rated Good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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 provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. People’s needs were now holistically assessed. Care plans were detailed, some relatives told us whilst they had not seen care plans, they were actively involved in planning their loved one’s care and could access care plans if they wished. People’s needs were fully assessed and reviewed as their needs changed. For example, following incidents such as falls, care plans and risk assessments were reviewed to reflect any changes needed. This meant staff had accurate guidance in place to support people safely.

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. A range of national risk assessments were in use to ensure any risks were identified using best practice guidance. For example, a nationally recognised wound assessment tool was utilised to identify people at risk of pressure damage, a nutritional risk assessment tool was used to highlight people at risk of malnutrition. The use of tools identifies areas of risk and provides guidance to staff to provide effective care. The provider had sought out their internal dementia specialist team to spend time with staff to implement best practice guidance and research in relation to dementia care. A staff member said, “We have had enhanced training in dementia, it’s helped me access parts of people’s personality I didn’t know were there, and it’s the training it’s really transformed the way I support people.” This demonstrated staff applied research and training to provide effective care to people.

The provider worked well across teams and services 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 services. Care plans were person centred and detailed people’s clinical needs. We found where specialist input was required their guidance had been included within people’s care plans. For example, a person had detailed guidance from a speech and language therapist embedded into their care plan. A professional we spoke with told us, “I have confidence in staff at Gateford Hill, they follow guidance I provide.” This meant people received effective support in line with their needs.

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. A person we spoke told us, “Staff contact the doctor for me when I need to see them, they are very good” and a relative we spoke with said, “We have very good access to the GP via the home and others like the optician.” Records were kept of when health professionals visited people, and what advice they gave. For example, staff explained how they recorded this information and ensured they included any new information to staff during handovers. Staff told us they encouraged people to undertake exercise to promote their overall health and well-being, staff said, “We do two forms of movement every week, we ask people what music they would like to move to and theme the workouts, I’ve noticed a real difference in people.” Some people preferred to spend time in their room, staff visited those people in their room and spent time talking and reading with them. This prevented people from feeling lonely which promoted their overall health and well-being.

The provider 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. Frequent care plan reviews meant the clinical team had effective oversight of people’s needs. People told us they and their loved ones where appropriate were supported to express their views about how they wished their care to be delivered. A relative we spoke with said, “I have regular phone calls to discuss my [relatives] care, I feel in the loop.” Care plan audits were completed to review and monitor people’s progress. Where concerns were identified action was taken. The electronic system meant when changes were needed these were made without delay. This meant staff had accurate information to support people effectively.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Staff completed training since our last assessment regarding the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the provider’s dementia specialist spent time with staff to strengthen their knowledge around the MCA. The MCA provides a legal framework for making decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to make particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. Where people lacked capacity mental capacity assessments had now been completed in line with the legal framework. Some people at the service were subject to a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLs), this is where the person cannot make decisions about their care and treatment. So restrictive care arrangements are legally authorised in the person’s best interest. Staff had knowledge of DoLs and how this impacts people. We found conditions attached to authorisations were complied with and detailed in people’s care records. We observed staff to ask consent before providing care, people’s right to say ‘No’ was respected and we observed staff to reattempt using a different approach. This meant people’s human rights were respected.