Snydale 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 assessment for this service under this provider. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 58 (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 consistently ensure that people’s care and treatment were effective, as systems to assess, review and involve people in their care were not reliably implemented. There was insufficient oversight to ensure that people’s health, wellbeing and communication needs were consistently assessed, discussed and reflected in care planning.

Staff told us information relating to people’s care needs was available in paper records and on the service’s electronic system. However, our review identified some care plans were incomplete, lacked essential and accurate information, and had not been reviewed regularly. This demonstrated a failure to maintain accurate, person-centred records.

We found significant inconsistencies in the quality and accuracy of care plans and risk assessments. In addition, there was limited evidence to demonstrate that people or their relatives had been involved in the assessment and review process. This meant we could not be assured records were reflective of people’s current needs, preferences, or wishes, or that they provided staff with the necessary guidance to deliver safe, effective care.

The provider did not consistently ensure that people were involved in planning and delivering their care and treatment, including consideration of what was important to them and their individual preferences.

A nationally recognised tool was used to identify individuals at risk of malnutrition, in line with recognised best practice. However, we identified inconsistencies in the completion of the tool, including inaccurate entries and incomplete sections. This reduced the reliability of the assessments and the provider’s ability to effectively identify and respond to risks associated with malnutrition, skin integrity and falls.

These issues were raised with the manager during the inspection, who took immediate action and provided assurances improvements would be implemented.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. They did not always share their assessment of people’s needs when people moved between different services.

Staff told us information about people was shared at the beginning of a shift during handover; however, no other methods of information sharing were identified during the inspection. Care plans were not always updated quickly, which meant staff did not always have accurate, up-to-date information about people’s needs and wishes.

We saw evidence of people receiving support from a variety of different services and health and social care professionals. Records showed people were receiving joined up care and support from community healthcare professionals and GPs.

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 who were at risk of losing weight received fortified meals and supplements to help them gain weight and improve their appetite. The manager told us they had completed local training in STEW (Support, Train, Eat, Well) to enable them to support people who required meal supplementation. People who had diabetes were offered low or no sugar options to help them manage their blood sugars well.

During Nutrition and Hydration Week, the provider took the opportunity to promote the importance of good hydration and nutrition in supporting overall health and wellbeing, which involved educational sessions for people and staff.

The provider did not consistently monitor people’s care and treatment to support continuous improvement or ensure outcomes were positive, consistent, and aligned with both clinical standards and people’s expectations.

Some care plans were inaccurate, incomplete, and not kept up to date, which meant people’s current needs were not always fully recognised or met. This put people at risk of receiving care that was not responsive to their changing circumstances.

Systems in place to monitor care and outcomes were not consistently effective. For example, clinical audits had not reliably identified or recorded significant weight loss, nor did they consistently highlight when people may have required additional input from healthcare professionals. This demonstrated gaps in oversight and a failure to promptly identify and respond to potential risks.

We raised concerns during the inspection, and the manager acted promptly. However, these issues indicated existing monitoring systems were not sufficiently robust to ensure ongoing safe and effective care.

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

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (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 decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible.

Capacity assessments had been completed for people living at the home which considered multiple aspects of their lives and what they could consent to. For example, 1 person requested a coffee machine for their room and there was a corresponding capacity assessment for this.

Staff told us they understood the importance of seeking consent from people before providing care. They had a good understanding capacity was variable, and gave examples of decisions people were able to make for themselves