Martlet Manor

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 remains 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 before admission and reviewed regularly to make sure care remained effective and responsive to change. Care records showed assessments covered physical health, nutrition, mobility, medicines, mental capacity, communication, social needs and preferences and risks, with clear guidance for staff on how to support people safely and effectively. When people’s needs changed, care plans were updated to reflect this.

People and their family members, where appropriate, were involved in assessments and reviews of care and support.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment in partnership with them and their family members, where appropriate. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Care plans included person-centred guidance for staff on delivering the best care possible in line with individual needs and preferences. Staff followed guidance provided by specialist professionals, such as physiotherapists and occupational therapists.

Staff had the training they required, and competency checks were completed for some specialist areas, showing the provider used competency‑based assurance to support care practice.

The service 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 worked well together and communicated effectively, which supported continuity of care and timely responses to people’s needs. We observed good teamwork during medicines rounds, mealtimes and activities. They engaged with visiting health and other professionals and followed guidance provided by them to ensure people’s health and other needs were met.

The registered manager told us how the service liaised with other services when people moved to or from the home. They described the importance of sharing information across services, and of seeking people’s consent before they did so.

The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People were supported to access GPs and other services when needed. One person told us, “They’ve helped me to access the GP, so I appreciate that.”

The service provided a wide range of activities for people, based on their interests. These included gentle exercise sessions, including tai chi, and activities designed to promote social interaction and improved mental health. For example, Namaste sessions were provided for people living with dementia. These provided individual sensory experiences for people and were delivered by trained staff.

People were also supported to participate in activities outside the home. These included local walks, trips to places of interest, and meals out. A person told us, “6 of us went to the local pub for a meal last week. It was lovely.” A section of the garden had been developed with raised beds and a greenhouse to enable people who missed their gardens to participate in a wellbeing activity they enjoyed.

The service 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.

Systems were in place to monitor and improve outcomes. People’s care plans and risk assessments were reviewed regularly and updated where there were any changes in needs. The service had a ‘resident of the month’ scheme that ensured people’s individual needs were fully reviewed on at least an annual basis. Staff followed guidance from health professionals, such as physiotherapists and occupational therapists.

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

Staff described how they offered choices and sought consent from people when providing care and support. A staff member told us, “With some people we need to limit the amount of choice we offer because they can get a bit overwhelmed. We can show them things to help them make choices and if they don’t like those, we show them something else. We work it out in the end.”

Information about people’s capacity to make decisions was included in care plans. Capacity assessments had been carried out using guidance associated with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Where people were deemed to lack capacity to make decisions that might create a need to restrict specific activities due to risk, the service had applied to the local authority for a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguarding (DoLS) authorisation. DoLS authorisations are required where any restrictions are put in place where a person is unable to consent to these. The records showed the provider had ensured appropriate DoLS applications had been made, including where renewals of these were required.

Staff had received training in capacity and consent. The service’s policies and procedures reflected current best practice in relation to capacity and consent.