The Hurst Residential 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 assessment we rated this key question Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained 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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People's health and social needs were assessed before coming to live at The Hurst Residential Home. This had ensured the service could meet the identified needs of the person and that staff had the necessary training to keep them safe and well. There had been two recent people coming to live at The Hurst Residential Home. Their pre-admission documentation had been completed in full and used to inform the care plan and risk assessments.

People’s communication needs were assessed regularly and reviewed to ensure people were offered opportunities to participate in their care decisions. People’s care records were reviewed regularly to ensure they remained an accurate reflection of people’s needs. People's assessments included sufficient detail about their individual care needs and preferences, which had ensured their needs were met consistently and effectively.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them, in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. However, this was not always clearly documented within individual support plans and therefore not always measurable.

Staff told us that checks did take place and that where they had concerns, these were taken forward and routine monitoring put in place to track improvements or concerns. One staff member told us, “We have a new person, and we are monitoring their blood sugars, and weight to get to know what is normal for them and we’re working with the GP and diabetic team.”

Staff told us that they were given training which followed current good practice guidance, and that they got updates and refresher training. One staff said, “We do get training refreshers and supervisions. We also have had competency assessments.”

There was evidence of multi-disciplinary team meetings to discuss people’s needs and wishes and ensure sharing of good practice. The provider used a computerised care record system that used recognised assessments to measure people's support needs if they required them. The service had links with other organisations to access services, such as the mental health team and community alcohol management teams.

Whilst the provider worked well across teams and services to support people, there were some discrepancies between the information in the paper files kept on each person and the computerised care plan. This meant there was a potential that not all important information was shared. During the assessment process, we were informed that all documents were being reviewed and now contained updated information.

Staff told us how they work as a team. One said, “We support each other and work well together.” Staff told us that all new staff worked with an experienced staff member who knew people well, which helped them to settle in.” Another staff member said that they felt that the home was better, the registered manager had addressed some of the problems, and the cameras had really helped. The staff confirmed they had regular staff meetings and were supported to contribute ideas and suggestions.

Health professionals told us that working relationships had improved and staff were knowledgeable about the people they support.

All relevant staff, teams and services were involved in assessing, planning, and delivering people's care and treatment. Staff worked collaboratively to understand and meet people's needs. When they needed advice, they sought it from the appropriate health professionals and listened to their advice.

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 told us that the staff encouraged them to remain as healthy as possible. One person said, “They make sure I eat properly and will always ask me if I am okay” and “Staff talk to me about my general health, they support me to see doctors and nurses to keep me healthy.”

There were processes in place to guide staff about how to support people to lead healthier lives. People were encouraged by staff to eat healthy meals and drink regularly to maintain their physical health. They were encouraged to be active, and to take part in activities if they choose to. Advice and support were given by staff regarding managing their dependencies and seeking advice from other health professionals when required. Care documents showed there was evidence of regular reviews and input from the GP, specific health professionals, opticians, dentists and chiropodists.

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 were supported to monitor their health needs and were involved in monitoring any medical conditions they had. People had the option to have their basic observations such as weight, blood pressure and oxygen saturation levels completed by staff. Some people preferred not to but were always offered the opportunity.

Staff used tools to monitor peoples’ health, but there was not always evidence of what action was taken when they were not within normal parameters. For example, weight decrease or high blood sugars.. This was fully discussed, and this may be more of a recording issue and therefore staff will receive further training and support.

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

People were supported to give their consent in relation to their care and support. Care records included consent forms in relation to personal care, photographs, alcohol management plans, house rules regarding smoking and medication. Where people did not have the capacity to consent, the correct legal authorisations were in place. However, there was a lack of reflection of how people’s capacity may change due to their mental health or when under the influence of drugs or alcohol. This was acknowledged by the registered manager who was working on this with staff.