Golden Horizon 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 67 (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, however it wasn’t always evidenced this was discussed with people and relatives. Some relatives told us they were informed of any changes in relation to their loved one’s care and support, but the majority said they had not been part of care plan reviews. We shared this feedback with the home manager who told us the service was implementing 6 monthly care reviews with people and relatives to ensure people’s opinions on their preferred care tasks were recorded in their care plans. Information had been gathered during the pre-admission assessment which included a person’s current situation, health and wellbeing, skin assessment and risk, continence needs, mobility and fall risk, medication, memory and understanding, personal safety. This information formed people’s care plans. Where people had additional clinical needs, risk assessments were in place to guide staff on what support and actions may need to be taken.

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 was using nationally recognised tools to assess and monitor risk. For example, the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) where people were at risk of weight loss. Where people required meal supplements to increase or maintain their weight, these had been prescribed. We observed positive mealtime experiences during our onsite visits, where people had a visual reference and an option of 2 choices of meals. Additionally, people could choose lighter meals if they changed their mind. People and relatives told us the quality of meals were good, and we saw snacks and drinks available for people. One person told us, “The food is excellent, plenty of it, they asked what I like, I like soup and they did that for me. In the morning they make me bacon and eggs, I changed my mind this morning and had cornflakes”. A relative shared, “They were very thin when they went there as they were not eating properly. They are certainly eating better and have gone up two dress sizes”.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. People were supported by staff who worked collaboratively with other healthcare professionals and external visitors. People had access to external healthcare professionals, and care plans evidenced the relevant referrals had been made where required. Overall feedback was positive, 1 healthcare professional commented, “Staff are responsive, they document what I've done and when I'm coming again, people are well looked after, staff are approachable, they would definitely act upon any concerns, and they keep the communication going”. The new manager was in the process of familiarising themselves and establishing relationships with some external healthcare providers, who told us communication could be improved.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. People had access to regular healthcare professionals, these included the GP, district nurse, speech and language therapists, dental access and opticians. Some of these visits were supported by staff and some by relatives. One relative told us, “We take [person] to the Opticians. Doctor goes into the home regularly and staff get them to see people who need it. They would update us when needed”.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to improve it. Care plans contained information about people’s health and wellbeing and were regularly reviewed. We identified where people’s daily care interventions were recorded, this was not always consistently completed. For example, with repositioning charts. Although there was no impact to people, we could not always be assured people were repositioned as per the guidance in their care plans. We shared this with the home manager and providers who told us they would review people’s recorded care tasks. Staff were aware of when people’s presenting needs changed which could indicate a deterioration in their health or wellbeing. Concerns were escalated appropriately and shared with external health professionals and during staff handovers to ensure a consistent care approach and timely intervention.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. The provider was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty (DOLS). People were supported to make choices and have control over their lives. Staff worked in the least restrictive way and acted in people’s best interests. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act and how to ensure people’s consent was gained. Relatives also confirmed this, 1 relative said, “Staff speak with them and do ask them what they want and say what they are going to help them with. They are very encouraging”. Another relative shared, “They always speak with them and explain things. They know them very well and know if they should go and come back. They don’t force people to do anything”. We observed staff seeking permission and asking people’s preferences before commencing care tasks.