Templeton Place 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 75 (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 face to face prior to moving to the service. Some people moved to the service long term, while others had moved there for respite for a short period. One person’s relative said, “Before [name] came here, they visited [name] at home. We also came to an open day, and they welcomed us and chatted to us. The staff spoke with me about [name’s] care when they came to meet us at home.” One person told us, “I came for 2 weeks respite and didn’t go home [because I liked it here]. I spoke to [staff] about all the things I need help with and my difficulties.” The clinical lead said, “The pre-assessment process is very thorough because we want to make sure we can meet people's needs.”

People’s needs were reassessed regularly. People’s relatives told us they were invited to these reviews and had seen their loved one’s care plan

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 used nationally recognised tools to assess and monitor people’s needs and risks, including the risk of malnutrition and skin damage. We saw the service had introduced new oral

care procedures based on best practice guidance.

Kitchen staff knew people’s dietary needs and preferences and were trained to carry out their roles. They told us how they were kept informed about people’s changing needs. We observed lunch during the inspection. This was a sociable experience with people encouraged to eat in the dining room with others if they chose to. Everyone told us they enjoyed the food, and that they were offered choice and provided with plenty to eat. Comments included, “The chef is brilliant”, “It’s lovely food. It’s good and nutritious.”

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 told us they worked well with other health professionals. We saw health professionals visiting people during the inspection and 1 told us, “It works smoothly here. The assessment is booked by our admin team through the team here. I come and see the person on reception, and they take me to a staff member, who then takes me and introduces me to the person I’m here to see.”

The clinical lead told us, “We have daily stand-up meetings, and we discuss any appointments people might have in hospital for example, and any health professionals coming in to review people that day. I try and join the GP rounds each week so that I have oversight of everything.”

Records were kept when health professionals visited, and what advice they gave.

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 told us staff contacted the GP for advice if they were unwell and supported them to attend healthcare appointments. One person said, “I’ve recently been unwell. The staff noticed and were concerned and told me they were going to call the doctor. I had to go to hospital, and I’ve got another hospital appointment next month. Staff will arrange transport for me and if needed a member of staff will go with me.”

The management team had oversight of people’s wellbeing and were able to refer people for additional advice and support when required. Records showed concerns were acted on. For example, if people had lost weight, the GP was informed, and people were supported with food supplements and a fortified diet.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

There was oversight of people’s needs in place. Records showed that wounds, weight loss and falls, for example, were monitored and analysed. People’s relatives told us their loved ones were well looked after, and several told us their relative had gained weight. One person’s relative said “I do not have any healthcare concerns relating to my loved one’s care. When they were admitted [to the service] from hospital, they had a level 3 bedsore, and this has been treated and is a lot better now. They also have improved with their eating and drinking and have put on weight.” One person told us, “I feel the staff really understand my needs. I’ve improved a lot since I’ve been here”. They told us about their physical health and how staff always ensured there was a rounded, comfortable chair available for them to use.

Referrals were made for people who required additional clinical support, such as the tissue viability nurse, the older people’s mental health team and speech and language therapy (SALT). The clinical lead told us about the walking groups and exercise classes for people to support mobility and strength. Seated exercise classes were held at least 2 mornings per week, which were focused upon the legs and people’s core strength to help prevent falls. We heard 1 person say, “Oh, you've just reminded me about the exercises. I want to go to those today.” The service had good links with the community independence team and the GP carried out weekly reviews.

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

Throughout the inspection we saw and heard staff ask people for their consent. For example, we saw staff knock on people’s bedroom doors before going in. We saw staff walking with people and asking them where they wanted to sit.

People and their relatives told us staff respected their choices. One person’s relative said, “The staff are aware that my loved one prefers their own space. They always give [relative] the option and if they don’t want to do anything they don’t push it.” People’s preference for male or female staff when being supported with personal care was documented and respected in practice.

Mental capacity assessments were carried out in line with legislation and best interest decision making procedures were in place and were followed. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). In care services, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA, whether appropriate legal authorisations were in place when needed to deprive a person of their liberty, and whether any conditions relating to those authorisations were being met. All legal applications had been made in accordance with DoLS. This meant people’s rights were fully respected. The registered manager kept a record and tracker of DoLS applications and authorisations.