Magnolia House 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 inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained 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 and care needs with them.

People’s individual care and support needs were assessed and planned for. People were involved as fully as possible in choices about their care. Care plan records on the providers electronic care system had been regularly reviewed by the registered manager and senior and kept updated as people’s needs changed. This included records of weight and screening for risks, such as malnutrition.

The provider used an electronic care system, so the registered manager could monitor remotely that people were receiving the care required.

Staff 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.

We observed staff using a hoist to mobilise a person in line with their care plan. Staff were very attentive and spoke, sang and reassured the person throughout being transferred into a wheelchair. They then ensured the person was comfortable and had all they needed.

Staff felt they had enough training to follow good practice and maintain evidence-based standards.

The registered manager and staff were aware of peoples’ individual nutritional needs. The registered manager monitored that people were happy about the food provision at the home and regularly asked for feedback.

The provider used an external food company to provide meals to the service. Staff were able to order meals specific to people's dietary requirements and regular tasting days were arranged so people could give their views.

The registered manager confirmed there were 2 meal choices each day and alternatives were available. People mostly told us the food was good and confirmed there was a choice of menu and alternatives were available. Comments included, “They are always offering food and drinks”, “I like plain food, sometimes things are complicated. But choices are limited and sometimes good choices” and “If I don't like the food, I would tell them, I think they would give me something else.”

The dining experience we observed was positive. People were asked their meal preference each morning. On the first day there were no accessible menus for people to remind them of the meal choices. On the second day, 3 new menu chalk boards were on the wall in the dining area.

The registered manager had introduced a snack tray, fruit platters and milkshakes to assist people who had lost their appetite.

The registered manager and staff worked well across teams and services to support people.

Staff worked closely with the GP, community nurses, occupational therapists, physiotherapists and the local rehabilitation team. The provider told us in their ‘provider information return’ (PIR), they had a dedicated GP who visited the home every Tuesday and they could contact the surgery to request a visit.

Health and social care professionals were positive about Magnolia House. Comments included, “The staff do seem to follow my guidance and advice and I do feel that they have the required skills to support the residents. I have got to know (registered manager) well and have great confidence that she would act on any concerns raised…staff treat me and the residents politely and courteously” and “When I have asked for changes to someone’s care plan, they have responded accordingly in a prompt manner.”

Staff supported people to live healthier lives and to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control.

Care plans provided staff with guidance about how to provide effective care and support. Health needs were monitored. For example, people’s weights were regularly checked to enable responsive action to any significant increase or decrease in weights. Any concerns were raised with the GP.

Staff were knowledgeable about people’s health care needs and support. There were effective communication procedures in place on the electronic care system and through handover to keep staff up to date with any changes and important information.

Staff monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it.

People felt staff were attentive and knew when their needs had changed and involved health professionals appropriately.

Care plans were regularly audited to ensure reviews were completed and any identified actions were followed up.

Staff respected people’s rights around consent and delivered person-centred care and treatment. Staff offered choices to people, so they had control over what they did. The registered manager was working with staff to further improve choice about times of getting up and going to bed.

Staff asked for people’s consent before they supported them. The registered manager and senior staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act and how to make decisions in people’s best interests where they lacked the capacity to make a specific decision.

Staff knew people well and how they communicated their wishes. One member of staff said, “People get a choice. (Person’s name) is just getting up, her choice.”

Care plans were reviewed regularly to ensure any gaps relating to people’s ability to consent to care was identified and rectified. Any restrictive decisions were discussed as part of a best interest process and reviewed. Capacity was well documented, and mental capacity was assessed showing supported decision making.