Burwood Grange 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 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, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People and relatives were involved in initial and on-going assessments. Records were person-centred and reflected what was important to the person. People were assessed before being admitted to the home. The provider admitted people gradually, to ensure the home was the right fit for them and their needs could be met.

Pre-admission assessments were comprehensive. They contained details of the person, their preferences, health conditions and all aspects of their lives. Based on this, a plan was devised on how to best support the person. Care plans were developed from the initial assessments and were regularly reviewed and updated as people’s needs changed.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

People’s health and nutritional needs were assessed and recorded in their care plans. The staff supported people with their choice of meals by showing them plated meals and drinks so they could indicate their preferences. However, some people stated they did not always enjoy the food on offer. Their comments included, “The cuisine is not what everyone here likes”, “The food could be better. I had to send back my breakfast the other day as it arrived late and was stone cold” and “The only problem here is the food. People here want plain, good quality food. Everyday cooking that you would make yourself if you could.” A relative agreed and said, “I think it is sometimes the basics that are not done well. Porridge is so easy to make but not so nice if it is served cold. It sounds like an organisational problem at times.” We discussed this with the provider who sent us evidence of their actions to make improvements in this area.

Some of the people we spoke with however, said they liked the food on offer. One person said, “So far, I have been enjoying the food. There are plenty of drinks available” and another stated, “Food is pretty good, I had bacon (for breakfast).”

Where people were at risk of malnutrition, we saw evidence the staff took appropriate action, for example, referral to the GP in the first instance and speech and language therapy (SALT) team or dietician. One person had been identified at risk of this. We saw their weight was being monitored weekly, and their food was being fortified. At the advice of SALT, they were on a high calorie and protein diet. Their weight was stabilised as a result. The chef confirmed they knew the person’s needs and showed us this information.

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 told us they enjoyed working at the home, there was a very good culture and supportive teamwork. A staff member told us, “I like it here. I got used to it now. All the colleagues are nice. I feel supported.”

People and relatives told us the staff worked well together and communicated with them well to meet their needs. One relative stated, “They do tell me what’s going on and I’m involved. Nothing’s done without my knowledge” and another said, “Oh yes, we’re involved. I’m seeing [senior care worker] about [family member’s] care plan in the next couple of days.”

The management team told us they liaised with other professionals and agencies to share information and good practice to make continuous improvement to benefit people.

The provider always supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to fully maximisetheir independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and wherepossible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People felt that overall, their health needs were met and the staff responded when they felt unwell.

People were supported to access a range of health care professionals. Care records contained detailed information about people’s health conditions and how these might affect people. Care records also contained relevant areas of health that needed to be maintained and improved. For example, a person living with epilepsy had a care plan which detailed the condition and the impact this had on their life, such as they might feel drowsy after a seizure.

Staff knew people well and demonstrated how they would recognise changes in their health and what they would do if they had concerns. A healthcare professional involved in the care of people told us, “They give me the impression they know the residents well. They actively contact the GP. They ring or message asking for GP reviews for unwell residents, which makes me feel they take their responsibility seriously for people’s health and wellbeing.”

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.

There was evidence of regular reviews and action being taken immediately following any changes to people’s health needs. People were supported to attend relevant healthcare appointments and the outcome of these was recorded in their care plans. Staff mentioned having a good relationship with external professionals. There was some evidence of ongoing monitoring of physical health needs and inter professional working, such as SALT, GP, district nurse and physiotherapists. A healthcare professional told us, “The carers know the residents well. They seem organised.”

The registered manager told us they had regular meetings with healthcare professionals to ensure people’s health needs were monitored and they received care and treatment according to their changing needs. They added, “We also do ‘Resident of the day’, where we track anything like weight loss etc. We use the electronic system to measure data. We make appropriate referrals, such as falls referrals when necessary.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff received training in the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). They demonstrated knowledge of this, and an understanding of what decision-making in the person’s best interests meant.

The provider was meeting the requirements of the MCA. People were consulted in all aspects of their daily lives and were encouraged to make their own choices if they were able to. People and relatives confirmed this, and we saw evidence of this during our inspection. One person told us, “While I’ve been here, I can almost do what I like, within reason, of course.”

Where people lacked capacity, we saw decisions had been made in their best interests, and relevant professionals had been involved in the process.