Wrottesley Park 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 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 71 (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.

There was a process in place to ensure people’s needs were assessed. The assessments we reviewed considered people’s individual risks, needs and preferences. People and those important to them were involved with the process.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

The registered manager was aware of the right support, right care, and right culture guidance and told us they considered this as part of the home’s ethos. The registered manager had considered specific training for staff including Oliver McGowan training (this is the government’s preferred and recommended training for Learning Disability and Autism) and Makaton. They told us they worked in partnership with people and those important to them to ensure care was tailored to people’s individual needs. People also had the opportunity to access the community. The registered manager explained they promoted independence where possible for people and considered their rights.

The registered manager also told us they had a system in place which used evidence-based tools to assess people’s needs. A variety of assessment tools were available if needed to ensure people’s needs were identified and met. These included assessments to consider people’s nutrition and skin risks. Staff were aware of the outcomes of these assessments to ensure they delivered the correct care that people needed.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people.

Staff worked well together, this included sharing information about people. They had the opportunity to attend handovers and meetings where peoples needed were discussed and considered. Staff told us they felt listened to in these meetings and were able to share information and concerns which would be considered.

When people needed support from external professionals such as physiotherapists or occupational therapists, referrals had been made and staff were aware of and followed recommendations.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control.

People’s health needs were responded to. One person said, “My diabetes is controlled well as it’s diet and insulin controlled”. Another person told us, “I get up early, so they shower me and cream my legs. They never run out of my medicine. My legs are really well cared for. They are in excellent condition and that is because they cream them regularly and do a good job”. A relative told us, “My relation has a permanent catheter, it’s always clean and well cared for. It didn’t used to be. He empties the day one himself. It’s great he has kept some independence” and “They allow to keep that as much as he can. He loves doing stuff for himself”.

People’s health needs were identified, assessed and reviewed when changes occurred. People were encouraged to be part of this process and remain as independent with tasks as possible. Where appropriate people had visual prompts to help them with this. When people needed support from external health professionals there was a system to ensure referrals were made and care plans were updated to reflect any recommendations. Staff we spoke with were aware of people’s individual health needs and the levels of support they may need.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it.

There were systems in place to ensure people’s needs were identified, assessed and reviewed to ensure positive outcomes were achieved for people. People were at the centre of this when outcomes and actions were being identified.

We saw case studies where positive outcomes had been achieved for people. This included how staff had worked closely to develop trust with a person, and they were now more involved with the home. Another person had been encouraged and supported to attend local football matches as this was something which they had previously done with a relative before they passed away. In some instances, people had moved on from the home to live in a more independent environment.

The provider did not always work within the principles of The Mental Capacity Act 2005.

There were capacity assessments and best interest decisions in place for people when needed, however, these had not always considered all relevant aspects of people’s care. For example, the provider was using CCTV in communal areas and people had not consented to this. When we raised this the provider took immediate action by turning off the CCTV and implementing a consultation period about the use of this in the home. We will review the action that was taken as part of our next inspection.

People raised no concerns with how they consented to their care.

Other capacity assessments and best interest decisions were in place when needed to ensure the Mental Capacity Act was applied, including when people used covert medicines. Covert medicines are the administration of medicines in a disguised form. Staff had received training in this area and were aware of how people consented and of the processes to follow.