Pemberley Manor Care and Nursing 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.

The last rating for this key question was Requires Improvement. We found a breach of the regulation in relation to safe care and treatment. We took enforcement action and served a warning notice in relation to that breach of regulation.

At this assessment we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of the regulation in relation to safe care and treatment and the rating has now improved to Good.

This meant people using the service were receiving effective care and treatment.

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.

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 told us they were actively involved in assessing and managing their needs. Comments included, “I feel fully involved”, “They [staff] know me very well and they think of everything”, and “Staff are always communicating with us.”

People’s needs were assessed moving into the service. These reflected their physical and mental health, wellbeing and communication needs. Assessments and care plans were comprehensive, individualised, and contained details about people’s wishes, cultural needs and what was important to them. Reviews were regularly conducted to ensure care plans remained up to date, especially when there were changes in people’s conditions or circumstances.

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 and standards.

Clinical assessment tools were used effectively for example, to monitor people’s weight, diet and nutrition and for people who were at risk of developing pressure injuries, we saw these assessment tools monitored and supported to help reduce the risk of developing pressure injuries.

People's nutrition, hydration, dietary and cultural needs were met. People told us they enjoyed the food served and choice of menus on offer within the service. Comments included, “The food is very good and plenty. I can manage without help”, “The food is excellent and enough”, and “The food is good, especially breakfast.”

The chef was knowledgeable about people’s dietary needs. For example, some people had allergies, some used plate guards, some people preferred vegetarian and pescetarian diets and some people did not eat certain meats. They showed us records which detailed where people had diabetes and modified textured diets. The chef told us they met with speech and language therapists when people were referred for assessments when they had difficulty with eating and drinking. All staff had recently received training on supporting people to eat safely and supporting people to enjoy their meals. The chef told us they discussed people’s food preferences through the resident of the day scheme and when new people moved into the service. They also attended regular residents’ meetings where they asked people what they would like to see included on the menus.

We observed how people were supported at lunch time in the dining room. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. People were offered choices from menus and were offered a wide range of drinks. There were enough staff to assist people safely, and we saw positive interactions between people and staff.

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 had positive and effective relationships with visiting health and social care professionals. Staff communicated effectively with other professionals. These included GPs, community mental health teams, palliative care teams, dietitians and local commissioning authorities amongst others. A visiting health professional told us staff were proactive in referring to them when required and communication with staff was very good.

Staff supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and future support needs. People told us they had access to health care professionals when they needed them. Comments included, “They [staff] organise everything”, “The doctor has seen me several times”, and “It is all laid on for you.”

People were supported to access a range of health and social care professionals when required to support their physical and emotional wellbeing. Care plans documented how best people should be supported and staff monitored people’s conditions and health needs on a regular basis, acting promptly if people became unwell.

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

Staff were dedicated to ensuring people received good outcomes. Staff were trained and able to provide examples of how they used clinical tools and practice to detect and recognise ill health and deterioration in people. For example, health problems like infections in the management of falls.

Care plans were reviewed on a regular basis to capture any changes in people’s needs and risks and daily records were maintained by staff to monitor people’s wellbeing.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these. People told us staff were respectful and always sought their consent. People told us staff sought their consent. Comments included, “They [staff] do, but I trust them anyway”, and “They [staff] always ask and for the bigger things my family and I are involved.”

People were supported to have maximum choice and control over their daily lives. When people lacked the mental capacity to make decisions, the provider met with relatives where appropriate to ensure any decisions made, were in the person’s best interests. Staff promoted people's rights and worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The MCA provides a legal framework for making decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. The provider had requested legal authorisations where restrictions were in place. Any conditions in place were reviewed by staff and met.