Wentworth Court 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 our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant, despite the shortfalls we identified on inspection, people’s outcomes were good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 67 (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 ensure people’s care and treatment were effective because people’s health needs were not consistently reflected in their records, which meant staff did not always have clear guidance on how to meet these needs.

Although pre admission assessments were completed, we saw an example where a health condition had not been effectively recorded across a person’s care plan and risk assessments. As a result, there was no protocol in place to respond to any acute episode resulting from their condition. We also saw that medicines risks were not always considered in care plans, which placed people at risk of staff not meeting their assessed needs.

People and their relatives told us they had been involved in assessments and care planning, and care plans were generally person centred. One relative said, “With regard to the care plan, we review it and update it in-between…there is good communication, if there is important information it is put in writing.”

A range of clinical assessment tools were used effectively, and people’s communication needs had been recorded.

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.

The provider’s systems provided staff with assessments and care planning tools which aligned with national standards, evidence-based practice and guidance which were widely recognised by health and social care professionals. This meant visiting professionals also understood the information these provided.

The Waterlow Pressure Area Risk Assessment was used to identify and manage people’s pressure ulcer risks, and the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) was used to monitor and manage risks associated with malnutrition or obesity. Staff were trained to use these tools, and the outcome of these assessments determined the care required.

People with swallowing or eating concerns had their choking risk assessed, and in some cases, this resulted in alterations to the texture of their food and drink. Where needed these people were referred for assessment by a speech and language therapist. Alterations to the texture of food and drink were done in line with the International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative (IDDSI). Care and kitchen staff were trained to understand how people’s food and drink needed to be prepared and provided this in line with this guidance.

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.

Daily handovers were clear and structured, and clinical information, concerns, or changes in health were shared. This meant all relevant staff could access the information they needed to understand people’s needs and appropriately assess, plan and deliver their care, treatment and support.

Staff said they felt supported by colleagues. One said, “We all work together. We all work towards the best interests of the people that live here.”

Partnership working with external agencies was generally effective, and most partner agencies told us staff were proactive in working with them when multidisciplinary involvement was required, and any actions were followed up on as needed. One professional said, “In my experience they have been open to suggestions, comments and a range of views and opinions. In my experience they ensure all staff fully understand the needs of their [people] and place importance on all roles within the home as being an opportunity to enrich the lives of [people].”

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.

There was regular involvement from GP services and external health professionals, who attended the home to support people’s health needs. Professionals told us the service made referrals quickly when people’s needs changed and acted on their recommendations. Clinical meetings were held to discuss people’s health conditions and review any actions that needed to be taken. One relative said, “They ask [my relative] what [they] want, and they give [my relative] vegetarian food and when [my relatives] weight dropped, they gave [my relative] supplements and they weigh [my relative] each month to make sure [my relative] is a healthy weight.”

An effective system was not fully in place to monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. Audits and reviews were not consistently identifying or addressing gaps in care planning and delivery. For example, the shortfalls we identified in medicines management showed that people’s care was not always being monitored effectively. The registered manager responded immediately to our feedback and told us these shortfalls were being addressed.

Despite the shortfalls we identified, we heard and observed examples of how living at the home had improved people’s health and wellbeing. There was regular involvement from healthcare professionals who visited the home to support and monitor people’s health needs.

Daily handovers were held to ensure staff were kept well informed about people’s health and wellbeing. This supported a consistent approach to care delivery and monitoring of outcomes. One relative said, “Someone will always ring if there are any problems. [My relatives] weight was dropping off so the SALT team were brought in and suggested fortified foods…I like that they always listen and keep us informed.”

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

Staff received training in the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and sought consent before providing support. We observed staff explaining actions before moving or assisting people and returning later when a person declined a meal. These practices supported people’s rights and ensured decision‑making remained person‑centred. Relatives confirmed staff involved them appropriately when people’s capacity was limited.