St Margarets 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.

At the last assessment the service was in breach of the legal regulation in relation to consent to care and treatment. This key question was rated inadequate. This assessment found improvements had been made, and the provider was no longer in breach of the regulation. At this assessment the key question rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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.

At the last assessment the provider did not make sure people’s care and treatment was effective because they did not check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

At this assessment we found improvements had been made. The provider had made clear improvements in their approach to continually assess people’s needs. Regular reviews were being carried out more consistently, and staff were proactive in recognising when a person’s needs had changed. This ensured care and support remained responsive and aligned to each person’s current circumstances.

People and their relatives told us they felt involved in the assessment and review process. Staff worked in partnership with individuals and their families, seeking their views and encouraging them to contribute to decisions about care. This collaborative approach helped ensure assessments were meaningful and accurately reflected what mattered most to each person. One relative told us the provider had recently visited their loved one in hospital, and they had kept the family updated.

At the last assessment we found the provider did not plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

At this assessment improvements had been made. The provider was committed to giving people care and support based on good evidence and best practice. Since the last assessment, they made improvements in how they check information, follow guidance, and make sure staff understand what good care looks like.

The provider kept up to date with the latest advice by looking at research, reviewing professional guidance, and speaking with health specialists when needed. This meant the care people received was safer, more effective, and tailored to their individual needs.

We saw examples of how this made a difference. One person who was at risk of skin problems had much better outcomes after the provider spoke with health professionals and sourced specialist equipment. This equipment helped protect the person’s skin and improve their comfort. This showed the provider was willing to learn, act on advice, and use evidence-based solutions to help people.

Staff told us they understood the importance of working to recognised standards, and they felt more confident because training and guidance had improved. People’s care plans showed evidence-based approaches were now used more consistently.

At the last assessment we found the provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. They did not always share their assessment of people’s needs when people moved between services.

At this assessment the provider had made improvements in how staff, teams and external services worked together to support people. Communication between staff was stronger, and information was shared more clearly and consistently. This helped ensure people received joined up and well-coordinated care.

Staff worked more closely with health and social care professionals, which helped people get the right support at the right time. We saw staff were effective in seeking medical reviews whenever they noticed changes in someone’s health or needs. This meant concerns were acted on quickly which helped to prevent them becoming more serious.

People were supported when moving between services, such as to hospital appointments or when starting with a new healthcare team. Staff shared important information about people’s needs, preferences and health conditions so other professionals had a full understanding of how best to support them. This helped make transitions smoother, safer, and less stressful for people.

Teamwork within the service had also improved. Staff told us communication was better and they felt more confident knowing everyone had access to information. Handover processes and general record keeping had become more consistent since the previous assessment, which supported safer day-to-day care.

At the last assessment we found the provider did not support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not support people to live healthier lives, or where possible reduce their future needs for care and support.

At this assessment the provider had made improvements in how they support people to live healthier and more comfortable lives. We saw care plans had been updated and improved. They now included clearer information about people’s needs and gave staff clear guidance on how to support each person safely and effectively.

People were supported in line with advice from healthcare specialists, and this led to better outcomes. For example, we learnt of improvements in a person’s skin after staff followed guidance from external healthcare professionals and used appropriate equipment and care techniques. This showed staff were listening to professionals and acting on their recommendations to improve people’s health.

People had good access to services which promoted their wellbeing, such as chiropody, hairdressing, and optician appointments. This helped them maintain their independence, confidence and comfort. Staff also supported people with medical reviews and made sure information about people’s health needs was shared with professionals when needed.

At the last assessment the provider had not effectively monitored people’s care and treatment to continually improve it. They did not ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

At this assessment we found the provider had made improvements in how they monitor people’s health and wellbeing. There were clear and consistent records in place that tracked important information, such as people’s food and fluid intake and any time specific care they need. These records were completed accurately and helped staff identify changes or concerns quickly.

Ongoing healthcare monitoring was carried out in an organised way. Staff used information to understand each person’s needs and provide the right support at the right time. This meant people received care that was responsive and based on current, up to date information about their health.

At the last assessment the provider had not told people about their rights around consent or respect when delivering care and treatment. We were not assured staff training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 was effective as staff and the provider had limited skills and knowledge in this area.

At this assessment we found the provider had made improvements in how they gained and recorded people’s consent to care. Mental capacity assessments were in place where needed, and staff had a better understanding of the Mental Capacity Act and how to follow best interest processes when a person could not make a specific decision for themselves. This helped ensure decisions were made lawfully and in a way that protected people’s rights.

During our assessment visits, we observed staff offering people choice and explaining what they were doing before providing support. Staff were respectful and made sure people agreed to care before it was provided. This showed staff understood the importance of involving people in decisions and supporting them to have control over their day-to-day care.

When people lacked capacity for certain decisions, staff followed a more structured process. Best‑interest decisions were recorded, and staff involved the right people, such as relatives and healthcare professionals, to make sure decisions were made in the person’s best interests.