Kate's Home Nursing

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

We looked for evidence that people and communities had the best possible outcomes because their needs were assessed. We checked that people’s care, support and treatment reflected these needs and any protected equality characteristics, ensuring people were at the centre of their care. We also looked for evidence that leaders instilled a culture of improvement, where understanding current outcomes and exploring best practice was part of their everyday work.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

We were unable to view care being provided at the time of our onsite visit. However, we listened to support calls and reviewed patient care records. Staff completed a comprehensive health assessment in collaboration with the patient and their family. Staff developed care plans, which were holistic and met identified needs of the patient. The care plans were updated by staff who recorded any changes to care plans and risk assessments for partner agencies to view.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Local community nursing teams led the nursing care which Kate’s Home Nursing teams supported. Kate’s Home Nursing team had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of patients who had life limiting conditions. This included, but was not limited to, doctors, specialists in palliative care, physiotherapists, social workers and pharmacists. Staff assessed and met patients’ needs for food and drink and for specialist nutrition and hydration where this was needed.

Staff were experienced and qualified and had the right skills and knowledge to meet the needs of patients and their families. Nursing staff were supported by their managers by taking part in clinical supervision, appraisals and one to one meetings. Records showed 91% of staff were up to date with appraisals. Managers identified development opportunities at appraisals and staff felt supported in doing so.

Staff participated in clinical audit and benchmarking processes. Staff gave examples of quality improvement initiatives they were involved in.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service 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 attended regular and effective multidisciplinary meetings. This included the Gold Standard Framework meetings held at GP surgeries which included partner agencies. These meetings helped staff to identify when it was the best time for the patients to be offered support from Kate’s Home Nursing staff. Staff worked closely with Community Nursing Teams and other hospice providers to ensure patients received appropriate care.

Staff had effective working relationships within the organisation and were able to learn and receive support from their team members.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives where possible, and to ensure patients could access care and support for their future needs.

Staff supported patients to live their lives in as healthy a way as they could. Patients and families were offered emotional support and provided with care in a way that suited their needs. Staff responded to changing needs as they occurred and communicated this to partner agencies when appropriate.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service 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.

Staff used recognised tools to identify clinical deterioration in patients as a key element in patient safety. Outcomes were measured according to patient choice of how and where they wanted to receive care. Patients were asked about their preferred place of care and their preferred place of death and the service used this to inform their outcomes monitoring.

Staff used technology to support patients effectively. Electronic records were accessible for staff although this could be difficult in remote areas where internet connectivity was difficult to access. Paper records were kept in patients’ homes and all staff involved in patient care had access to them.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff took all practical steps to enable patients to make their own decisions. Staff recorded patients’ decisions on their preferences of care and shared this with other staff caring for them. For patients who might have impaired mental capacity, staff assessed and recorded capacity to consent appropriately and updated any changes. When patients lacked capacity, staff made decisions in their best interests, included the family, recognising the importance of the person’s wishes, feelings, culture and history.