Regency Hall

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

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.

People’s care plans were reviewed regularly; however, these reviews did not always identify some areas of shortfall we found during this inspection. In some cases, information within care plans was conflicting or lacked sufficient guidance for staff, which meant people’s needs were not always clearly or consistently understood.

We received mixed feedback from people and their relatives about whether they were involved in the care‑planning process. Some told us they felt included and able to contribute, while others said they were not always asked for their views or kept informed about updates.

The provider had introduced a ‘resident of the day’ system to strengthen the review process and ensure each person’s care plan was revisited in detail on a regular basis. This aimed to improve the accuracy of assessments and increase opportunities for people and their relatives to be involved in shaping their care.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

The provider made appropriate referrals to relevant health professionals when people’s health or wellbeing deteriorated, ensuring individuals received timely specialist input. However, stakeholders told us that information was not always shared with them in a timely manner. This meant that on some occasions external professionals did not have the most up-to-date information needed to support coordinated care.

While partnership working was generally effective, improvements were needed to strengthen communication pathways and ensure all professionals involved in people’s care received information promptly.

People were supported to maintain and improve their health and wellbeing. Care plans identified known health risks and included information on early signs of deterioration for staff to monitor. This helped ensure staff understood what to look out for and how to respond promptly if a person’s condition changed.

When there were concerns about a decline in a person’s wellbeing, the provider sought advice from relevant healthcare professionals. This included referrals to tissue viability nurses, discussions with GPs during ward rounds, and involvement from district nurses. This approach helped ensure people received appropriate clinical input and support to manage their health needs effectively.

The provider did not consistently monitor people’s care and treatment. For example, a person’s care plan, which included medically prescribed fluid restrictions, contained conflicting information about the amount they were permitted to drink. Records showed this person was frequently given fluids above the prescribed limit. This demonstrated a lack of effective oversight to ensure care was delivered safely and in line with assessed needs.

However, daily staff handovers took place, during which staff and leaders shared any emerging concerns about people’s health and wellbeing. This included discussing any medical advice that had been sought and highlighting where there had been a deterioration in someone’s condition, helping to ensure changes were recognised and acted upon.

Staff sought consent from people before providing care, and both people and their relatives told us staff consistently checked with them before offering support. Mental capacity assessments and best‑interest decisions were in place for specific decisions where people had been assessed as lacking capacity.

However, we identified a person’s care plan contained conflicting information about their capacity, which created a risk that staff may not apply the correct decision‑making process.