Pinetree 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 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.

Care plans and risk assessments were reviewed and updated regularly and we saw evidence of people and their relatives being involved in reviews of their care and support needs. Staff had handovers between shifts and confirmed that communication was good. One staff member told us, “Communication within the team is generally good. Important updates are handed over between shifts, and care plans are updated when changes happen. Families are usually informed of significant health concerns or changes in condition.”

The provider held a meeting every morning with key staff, to discuss any changes, concerns, appointments and activities planned for the day.

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 appropriate support with nutrition and hydration. Where required, people had their needs assessed by speech and language therapists (SALT) for any risks associated with choking. Dieticians and district nurses were involved with needs relating to weight loss and diabetes management. Care records detailed involvement from external healthcare professionals.

People had access to drinks and snacks such as cake and fruit throughout the day. We received mixed feedback around the food in the home. Some people felt the standard had recently reduced and there had been concerns around the meat quality, though feedback around this was positive for the actions the provider had taken to change supplier. Some of the feedback we received was around the food not always being what was on the menu that morning. Comments included, “They are bad at ordering food in, today the menu said fish, but they withdrew the menu at 8.30 this morning.” However another person told us, “The food is very nice.” We have fedback to the provider the comments people had raised about the food and the provider has carried out surveys for feedback with people about their views of the food.

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.

Handovers took place between shifts and the provider held a daily meeting at 11am to discuss any concerns/issues around the home. Staff told us they were kept up to date of people’s needs and did not raise any concerns around information sharing. One staff member told us, “We do a stand up meeting every day at 11am with all heads of departments to come in for a chat about changes/concerns.”

The provider worked closely with external health and social care professionals. One healthcare professional told us, “Pinetree is a lovely home and very informative on what information I need for the ward round. Staff are very good; they know their residents and they contact the surgery – communication is very good.”

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.

The provider had weekly exercise sessions in place for people such as yoga and a walking club. The home also had complimentary therapy options available to people such as a spa bath with sensory lighting. People’s dietary requirements were being met, for example, meals suitable for people with diabetes. One person told us, “Food is pretty reasonable and the quality of the food is reasonable. I am diabetic and they make special custard for me. There is always vegetables and we get fresh fruit. It is a reasonable balanced diet. There is a fresh fruit bowl in the coffee area for you to help yourself.” During our onsite inspection we observed the lunchtime dining experience. We saw that meals were good portion sizes and people were offered choices.

External healthcare professionals attended the home to provide support to people’s health needs which included a ward round from the GP. We saw evidence of good communication between the home and healthcare professionals. One healthcare professional told us, “There is a communication book on all floors for us to comment what we are doing. It has been in place since the new registered manager came here. Dressings etc are always available, the staff all know their residents.”

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.

Staff used structured monitoring tools such as a MUST (Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool) to help identify any changes to peoples’ care and support needs. The provider had audits in place to help monitor and drive improvement within the home. For example, monitoring around falls and call bell analysis to help identify if there were any concerns around the length of time people were waiting to receive support from staff.

Any updates to people’s needs were shared accordingly with staff via handovers, regular meetings and the electronic care planning system.

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

People told us staff sought their consent before supporting them. One person told us, “They [staff] always knock. The cleaner always asks for permission to go into our toilet – staff are respectful.” We observed people being offered choices and staff seeking consent before supporting people.

Mental Capacity Assessments (MCAs) were in place for key areas such as personal care and medication. The provider had processes in place for ensuring that Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard [DoLS] had been applied for appropriately and were monitored and reviewed. Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 [MCA] and DoLS.