St Martin's Residential 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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. 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, well being and communication needs with them.

People’s care needs were assessed regularly by the management team and senior staff during clinical review meetings. They involved people, where possible, and their next of kin.

People told us they were informed of any changes and, when necessary, professionals such as district nurses or doctors had visited “straight away”.

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.

Care plans were updated regularly and directed staff to meet people’s needs. Daily records mostly described the care and support people received and how the person had spent their day.

People’s nutritional and hydration needs were assessed and planned for. Care plans were detailed and contained information on people’s food and drink preferences.

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.

The management and staff teams worked jointly with other services and professionals to ensure people received effective and timely care. There were good relationships between the service and external professionals, such as district nurses.

Professionals told us the service had “improved a lot” and there were good relationships with the management, who contacted them if needed.

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.

Care records showed a range of health care professionals were involved in people’s care and treatment, and staff made appropriate and timely referrals to support people to stay healthy. Staff followed the recommendations of professionals, who confirmed staff worked closely with them to ensure people’s health and medical needs were met.

The provider offered exercise sessions to encourage people to remain active. One relative told us “There is something on every day for them”.

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.

Regular care plan reviews enabled staff to have full oversight of the health and social care needs of all people; and reviews led to changes in people’s care and to positive outcomes.

Following a review of 1 person’s needs, a professional stated the joint working between them and the staff had resulted in the person experiencing less anxiety and had achieved the “best care”.

People and their relatives told us they were happy and were complimentary of the staff stating, “They are looking after me” and “I am so lucky to have found it, [My relative] is so well looked after”.

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, and their relatives where necessary, gave their consent to the care and treatment they received, and people’s liberty was promoted in line with legal guidance. We observed staff asked people before providing any support.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (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. When they lack capacity to make specific decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. All staff had received training on the MCA and understood their role and responsibility in promoting the principles of the MCA. People’s rights and freedoms were promoted by the provider.

People’s capacity to make specific decisions was not always assessed and documented in their care plan in line with the legal framework.

Mental capacity assessments had been assessed appropriately for some people and was based on specific decisions such as the use of sensor equipment, however 1 person’s care plan contained a recorded best interest discussion, this was not decision-specific and instead grouped several unrelated issues together, such as: ‘The use of photography and the sharing of information.’

This approach does not align with the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which requires that best interest decisions are made and documented for each individual decision separately. Combining multiple decisions into 1 discussion risks failing to consider the unique circumstances and options for each decision. As a result, people may not have their rights under the MCA fully upheld, and decisions may not have been made lawfully. The provider explained how they intended to address this, and all assessments were under review.