Leighton Rose 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's needs were assessed before admission and reviewed regularly thereafter. Care plans reflected people's physical health, emotional wellbeing, communication needs and support requirements. Records demonstrated a person-centred approach and contained guidance to support staff in delivering consistent care. Assessments were regularly reviewed to reflect changing needs.
 

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. Records demonstrated healthcare advice was incorporated into care planning and support arrangements. Staff monitored people's health and wellbeing and sought additional support when required. We saw evidence of multidisciplinary involvement in areas such as mobility, pressure care, nutrition and long-term health conditions.

Staff worked effectively together and collaborated with healthcare professionals to support positive outcomes. Daily flash meetings, handovers and clinical meetings promoted communication across the service. Care records showed involvement from a range of external professionals including GPs, physiotherapists, tissue viability nurses and hospital services. This helped ensure people received coordinated care.

People were supported to maintain their health and wellbeing. Staff monitored people's nutritional needs, skin integrity and overall health and sought professional support where required. Records showed referrals had been made to healthcare professionals and specialist advice was incorporated into care planning. People received support which promoted positive health outcomes and wellbeing. A relative said, “Here, they notice everything about [Relative], they [have] improved so much since being here.”

The provider had systems to monitor quality and outcomes; whilst we found there to be no direct impact for people using the service, these were not always fully effective to demonstrate proactive and timely improvements. During the assessment we identified safeguarding concerns which had not been escalated appropriately. We also found completed surveys had not yet been analysed to identify trends or learning opportunities, however the provider told us they would be introducing bi-annual reviews of these to track trends and did use a number of other methods to gather feedback, for example, links were displayed across the service which would allow people to provide feedback anonymously at any time. Records relating to fire drills did not consistently evidence simulated evacuations. Leaders responded positively to feedback and demonstrated a willingness to strengthen oversight arrangements.

The provider respected people's rights and supported them to make decisions about their care. Records demonstrated consideration of consent, mental capacity and future wishes. Where people lacked mental capacity, assessments and processes were in place to support decision-making. Care planning promoted people's involvement in decisions affecting their care and wellbeing.