The Firs Care Centre

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 of this key question since the service was registered to the current provider. This key question has been rated 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.

People had their needs assessed and electronic care plans were created from the assessed needs. Staff had access to care plans to make sure they had the information they needed to effectively support people. One member of staff said, “All the information you need is on the system. When someone new moves in, the nurse goes through their needs with us.”

People said they had been asked about their care needs and preferences when they moved to the home. Some people thoughtstaff liaised with their family members when reviewing their care needs.

The staff used recognised assessment tools to assess areas of healthcare such as tissue viability and nutrition. We found that action had not always been taken when assessments identified specific needs. For example, one person had lost weight at the beginning of June and the action was to re weigh them later in June. This had not been carried out and when the person was weighed again in July they had lost further weight, but no action had been taken. This was raised with staff who took immediate action.

People were happy with the food served at the home and said there was always a choice of meal. We saw people who required their meal to be served at a specific consistency received the correct meal. Wenoticed that some people were not offered the opportunity to eat their meal in the dining room but ate in the lounge where they had been sat all morning. We discussed this with the manager who said they would make sure people were offered a choice.

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.

Staff felt there was good teamwork at the home which helped to make sure people received effective care. One visiting professional told us the staff worked well with them and acted on any recommendations made.

Records showed people accessed other healthcare professionals, such as doctors and speech and language therapists, according to their individual needs. One person told us, “I would talk to the carer if I needed a doctor or nurse and she would hand over to the nurse or the manager. No problems, there have been no problems."

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.

There was always a registered nurse at the home who was able to monitor people’s health.

Activity staff encouraged people to stay active with gentle exercises. One person told us, “Chair exercises on Friday. They make it fun – it’s exercise, but it’s fun. It’s a nice little group of us."

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Care plans were regularly reviewed to make sure outcomes for people were positive. However, there was limited evidence to show how people, or their representatives were involved in these reviews. One visitor told us they felt staff kept them informed of any changes, but they were not involved in formal reviews of the person’s care or their care plan. They said, “We don’t get invited to reviews. Would love to be involved.”

People lived in a home where they only received care and support with their informed consent. Where people lacked the capacity to consent, the provider worked in accordance with the law and current best practice guidelines.

During the inspection visit we saw people were asked for their consent before staff carried out any care.

Where people lacked the capacity to make specific decisions these were made in their best interests. Care plans showed where decisions had been made in people’s best interests in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.