- Care home
New Meppershall Care Home
Assessment report published 8 May 2025
Contents
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
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.
Assessing needs
Some improvement was needed in ensuring assessments and care plans contained consistent information in areas such as people’s health conditions, oral care and mobility. However, this did not impact people, and staff we spoke with knew people’s needs well. Overall, the service assessed people’s needs with them. This included documenting what people could do for themselves, the level of support they required and their preferences in areas such as their daily routine. A relative told us, “The carers are amazing here. [Family member] is really well-cared for. Staff are careful with their food as they have to have a soft diet.”
Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
The provider 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 standards. For example, we saw people routinely monitored for malnutrition risks in line with nationally recognised tools or where required regular monitoring of their blood pressure. Staff had received training in areas such as Epilepsy, Pressure area care and Dementia.
How staff, teams and services work together
The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They ensured people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services. Records showed, and staff told us people had been supported in accessing external health care services such as GPs and occupational therapists as required. A staff member told us, "GP rounds are on a Wednesday; we have good relationships with the nurses, social workers and physios.”
Supporting people to live healthier lives
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. For example, we observed that people were supported by planned activities based on exercises such as Zumba and yoga. People received foods which were fortified. A staff member said, "We try to get people to eat fortified diets, double cream, and all those things. We try to make sure people have fruit and plenty to drink." A relative said, "They are very good at phoning me if [family member] is unwell."
Monitoring and improving outcomes
The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent and met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. For example, we saw appropriate referrals had been made for a person who had been experiencing emotional distress to the dementia intensive support team. This resulted in therapeutic changes in how staff supported them with aspects of their care that could cause them emotional distress. A person said, “I can see a doctor if I need to, people are kind.”
Consent to care and treatment
Where the service had determined people could not consent or make specific decisions, such as those relating to receiving help with their hygiene, this had not been done in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 code of practice to include enough detail about how their capacity had been assessed. We did not find this had impacted people. In response, the provider reviewed their systems for assessing people's mental capacity. However, staff understood what consent meant, and we observed staff seeking consent before delivering care to people.