St Marys Chanterlands 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 63 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing needs with them. Detailed care plans were in place to guide staff in providing care. Care records reflected people’s health, preferences and support requirements and were supported by appropriate risk assessments. Staff understood people’s needs and used this information to help deliver care, although records did not always reflect this. Regular reviews of the care documentation were taking place, however feedback about family’s involvement was mixed. Some relatives told us they had contributed to reviews, while others could not recall being involved after the person moved into the service.

Further improvements were needed to ensure communication needs were fully assessed and met, particularly for people living with dementia. The part of the service for people living with dementia did not always provide information in accessible ways, with limited signage and a lack of pictorial activity boards. This may have affected some people’s ability to navigate their environment and make informed choices.

Overall, the provider had developed strong, person-centred care plans, but further work was needed to strengthen involvement in reviews and ensure communication needs were consistently met.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. People generally received appropriate support with nutrition and hydration. Chefs understood people’s dietary requirements, knew how to modify meals to the required level, and made sure people continued to have choices. Staff supported people to eat at their own pace, and people had access to drinks and snacks throughout the day. Relatives also described staff trying different foods when people’s appetites reduced.

However, records did not consistently show that staff followed evidence-based guidance. Staff did not always record the correct diet recommended by speech and language therapists, the use of thickeners, repositioning support or safety checks. Standard fluid targets were not always personalised and required input from professionals to tailor to people’s individual requirements. This meant the providers records could not always demonstrate that people received care in line with their assessed needs and professional recommendations. No identifiable impact was noted to people due to these concerns, however more work is needed in this area to embed good practice and improve records in the service ensuring staff work in line with evidence-based care standards.

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 worked with GPs, social workers and other healthcare professionals when people needed additional assessment or treatment. They shared relevant information and worked with other professionals to provide joined-up care. Relatives described nurses and paramedics providing treatment and then liaising with families.

Staff and managers held regular meetings to review care across the service. Meetings took place at different times so staff working different shifts could attend. Staff said they worked well as a team, supported each other and felt able to raise concerns.

Staff supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. They supported people to live healthier lives and, where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff supported people to access healthcare professionals when their needs changed. Relatives described involvement from GPs, paramedics, nurses, and other professionals. Staff escalated concerns when people developed infections, experienced falls so care could be reviewed.

People's outcomes were not always effectively monitored because records did not consistently demonstrate that care had been delivered in line with people's assessed needs. Inspectors found gaps in monitoring records and daily notes often lacked sufficient detail to show the impact of care on people's health and wellbeing, making it difficult to demonstrate how outcomes were being reviewed and improved over time.

Despite these shortfalls, people and relatives gave positive feedback about many outcomes achieved through the care provided. Relatives described staff supporting people to maintain nutrition, manage health conditions and in some cases reduce social isolation.

The provider had acted in response to inspection feedback. They reviewed care records, began to strengthen monitoring arrangements and introduced improvements to recording practices to provide greater assurance that people were receiving care in line with their care plans.

Staff told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.People had mental capacity assessments and best-interest decision records where these were required. Records also included information about lasting powers of attorney, decisions not to attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.