Pine View 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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Requires Improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to consent.

This service scored 50 (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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. People did not always receive person-centred care. Care records showed staff did not always understand or recognise people’s emotional support and communication needs. For example, 1 person’s care records reported multiple occasions where they were in distress, however staff failed to respond in an appropriate manner to alleviate this. The person's care plan did not provide guidance for staff on known triggers for their distress, and ways to support the person when they were in an agitated state. This meant the person was at risk of not receiving care which met their needs.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. Nutritional care records did not always contain consistent information about modifications to people’s food, using the recognised International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiatives (IDDSI). This is important so all staff supporting people to eat, and drink would know what was required to reduce risks of choking. For example, 1 person’s care records contained 5 pieces of contradictory information regarding their modified diet. This contradictory guidance for staff put the person at risk of choking through receiving an incorrect diet.

The provider did not always work effectively across teams and services to support people. Whilst there was evidence of engagement with other professionals, such as the GP, we found that records did not always reflect the current needs of people using the service. As a result, there was a risk that professionals involved in people’s care would not have access to up-to- date information.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. Our observations and review of people’s records showed little stimulating group or individual activities for people. We observed limited interaction from staff other than task focused engagement. Although staff were kind and polite and attentive to people’s needs there was no other conversations and general chatting. Most people and relatives told us staff supported people to access health and social care services. One relative said, “They call the doctor in, [person] never has to go out.” However, 1 person told us “I never see the GP.”

The provider did not routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent. For example, we identified concerns around the monitoring of a person’s emotional distress and incidents and injuries were not always reported correctly. This meant the provider did not have effective systems in place to enable them to monitor people’s outcomes.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment. People’s care records did not always contain sufficient information about the type of decisions they were able to make and how best to support them to make these decisions including any support a person may need with communication. Where people lacked capacity, the principles of the MCA were not always followed. Mental capacity assessments were not always completed and where people lacked capacity, best interest decisions were not always in place for relevant areas. For example, sensor mats were in place for several people to alert staff when the person mobilised. There was no record of consent or capacity assessment or best interest decision for the use of this equipment.