Seventrees 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.

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.

Relatives told us they felt they had not always taken part in regular reviews of people’s care plans. This limited opportunities to gain valuable insight into people’s needs and preferences. However, the provider told us how they spoke to people and their families before people moved in to assess their needs, and they completed internal care plan audits monthly.

There were gaps in meeting people’s assessed communication needs, which could limit their ability to communicate effectively. Although people’s communication needs were assessed, their assessed needs were not always met to maximise the effectiveness of their communication. For example, staff did not always support people using their assessed preferred communication approaches.

However, additional needs were identified and assessed using appropriate assessment tools. For example, tools to assess the risk of developing pressure injury and malnutrition were used. People’s care plans and risk assessments reflected the findings. This meant staff had the information they needed to support people in these areas.

Staff told us they had time to read and sign care plans and risk assessments and felt they contained the information they needed to be able to effectively support people.

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.

People received care in line with their care plans and risk assessments and were supported by healthcare professionals when needed. Where people had specific health needs, staff knew how to support them and when to contact health professionals, for example mental health services. Care plans were detailed, reviewed and updated. People were supported in line with clinical tools and best practice, for example regarding moving and handling.

People were able to people eat and drink when they wanted and were supported to be as independent as possible. We observed staff had enough time to support people at mealtimes.

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.

People were supported by staff who communicated effectively with each other, and with other professionals to meet people’s needs. For example, staff worked with mental health services to review people’s support needs, and people had hospital passports to share important information when people went to hospital.

Professionals told us they valued the effective communication with staff and the provider, this meant people received support they needed in a timely manner. For example, staff contacted a healthcare provider ahead of an appointment for a person, to request the equipment they needed to be ready for them, meaning they would access their appointment successfully.

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.

People were encouraged and supported by staff to make healthier choices. For example, they explained about eating a healthy balanced diet, and supported them to make their own choices about the food they ate.

Care plans contained information for staff about people’s health needs, records showed how staff identified changes in people’s health, and they took action to escalate concerns, resulting in effective timely treatment. People and relatives told us they attended medical appointments, for example, for annual health reviews, GP, mental health and dental appointments.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Although people had planned outcomes recorded in their care plans these were not always monitored and reviewed, and progress and achievements were not always measured and recorded. For example, one person’s outcome was around promoting independence in making drinks, however there was no record to show how they were progressing, or if they achieved this. Another person’s outcome was about using money safely. However, there was no measure to show progress with this outcome.

Some staff were not aware of people’s outcomes and told us people did not have goals set. People did not have long-term hopes or aspirations recorded, and a relative told us that people used to go on holidays.

However, we observed some staff supporting people to achieve their recorded outcomes. For example, we observed some staff promoted people’s independence skills.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

The provider did not always follow the principles of the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 (MCA) as they had signed consent on behalf of others. For example, staff signed people’s care plans on behalf of people. The provider should have ensured the person, or the person’s legal representative signed. When we raised this with the provider they told us they would review people’s care plans and staff would not continue to sign on behalf of others.

The provider had completed a best interest decision for each person for ‘All sections of care and support plan’. This blanket approach is not in line with the principles of the MCA, as best interest decisions should be decision specific to enable people to make decisions they are able to.

Staff we spoke with told us how they verbally sought consent from people, and we observed staff seeking verbal consent before supporting people. However, this was not always with in line with people’s care plans. For example, some people’s care plans stated people should be supported to make decisions by using easy read materials. However, we did not observe staff using these.

There was an MCA policy in place, however the provider did not always have robust systems and procedures to ensure people's mental capacity assessments (MCA) were always assessed, were decision specific, and best interest decisions were recorded. For example, there were some blanket restrictions in place such as, access to some food was restricted, a drawer was locked in the kitchen, and the door leading into the laundry was kept locked. There was no evidence of risk assessments, capacity assessments, or best interest decisions completed about these specific restrictions for each person. These were not assessed as least restrictive options.

Relatives gave us mixed feedback with regards to being involved in best interest decisions. Some relatives told us they were not involved, however, 1 relative told us they attended a best interest decision meeting about 1 person’s health procedure.