Spennymoor Care Home Limited

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 assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 63 (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 always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

We received mixed responses from people about whether they felt involved with their assessment when they first moved into the home. Most people said they either could not remember, or that their family would have done this on their behalf. One relative said, “Yes, we helped to write it. (Person’s] daughter in law had a review and it has been updated.”

We saw initial assessments and monthly care plan reviews were completed, although these were only signed by staff, despite there being a section where people who lived at the home and relatives could sign to show their involvement.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and support with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and evidence-based good practice and standards.

The service used nationally recognised assessment tools to assess people’s risks and support needs. This included malnutrition universal screening tools (MUST) to monitor people’s nutritional needs. There were good links with external health professionals who said staff listened to and acted on professional advice and recommendations.

People’s nutritional needs were met, and we observed lunch during the inspection. Dining tables had been set, and we saw several people sat in small groups around tables. Some people chose to eat in their bedrooms, and this was respected. Drinks and assistance were offered to people throughout the meal. One person said, “Sometimes it is too much so they have cut the portions down for me. The food is good; we get plenty of veg and tinned fruit and bananas.”

The provider told us the home was not part of any accreditation schemes. This is a structured program which verifies if an organisation meets certain quality and competence standards.

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.

People and their relatives told us they had access to healthcare professionals when they needed them. Staff explained that people were supported, where required, to attend appointments with a range of professionals.

There was a weekly visit by relevant health professionals to review people’s healthcare needs, and we saw district nurses visiting during the inspection.

The management and staff teams worked jointly with other services and professionals to ensure people received effective and timely care. There were good relationships between the service and external professionals. We spoke with the provider about ensuring this information was clearly recorded in people’s care plans.

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 received care and support that promoted their health, wellbeing, and independence. Individual dietary requirements and professional recommendations from GPs, dietitians, and other healthcare professionals were followed to ensure nutritional needs were met, although these were not t always clearly documented within people’s care plans.

People were offered a varied and balanced diet and made positive comments about the food. One person said, “Yes, I get all I want. The food does for me, I like vegetables and we get plenty of them. For breakfast I have porridge and toast.” Another person said, “We get very well, looked after. The food is alright, I have good appetite and I eat it all.”

Staff monitored and encouraged adequate hydration to support health and wellbeing, with records of people’s food and drink maintained by staff.

To promote both physical and mental wellbeing, people access to regular physiotherapy-led armchair exercise sessions and activities designed to encourage movement, engagement, and social interaction.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People’s care plans confirmed regular internal reviews were completed, although these were generally done by staff and did not clearly capture people’s views, any particular outcomes people would like to achieve and longer-term plans. This made it difficult to evidence if people were experiencing good outcomes.

Staff monitored people on a day-to-day basis. Where needed, referrals to healthcare professionals were made.

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

People were not always able to provide consent for the care they received. For instance, several people, who were not related, were in shared bedrooms and it was not clear how these decisions had been made.

Some people also had sensor mats in their bedrooms which alerted staff when people attempted to move without staff support. This can restrict people’s movements; however the necessary mental capacity assessments had not been completed to show these decisions were in people’s best interests.

The provider showed us emails where these decisions has been agreed with people’s families, although this wasn’t documented in a formal MCA assessment to demonstrate proper consent had been sought. The provider told us this would be updated.

There were written consent forms in people’s care plans for decisions including medication and receiving care and support from staff.