Featherton House

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 remained 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 thoroughly assessed using a person-centred approach. Comprehensive assessments were completed before people received care from the provider and were regularly reviewed using the provider’s ‘resident of the day’ process. Care planning documents covered topics such as health, mental wellbeing, communication, continence, medicines, and social needs. Assessments were detailed, up to date and reflective of each person’s history, preference, strengths and areas where support was required.

Staff worked in partnership with people to ensure their views and opinions were included in the development and review of care plans. Where appropriate people’s relatives were involved in reviewing their care. One relative we spoke with told us, “[Person] has a care plan, we review it regularly.” This helped ensure care reflected what mattered most to people and supported their preferences and choices.

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 recognised clinical tools to monitor people’s health and wellbeing, incorporating these into care plans and risk assessments. For example, staff used the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) to identify individuals at risk of malnutrition. People’s nutritional needs were closely monitored. Regular weight checks were carried out, and any weight loss or gain was recorded with appropriate actions taken in response. Weight changes were analysed monthly and actions were taken where required. This meant people were at a reduced risk of malnutrition.

The provider had systems in place to ensure staff were aware of who required modified diets. Staff told us they had enough time to support people to eat and drink at a relaxed pace, without rushing them. We saw people ate meals at a time that suited them. One staff member we spoke with told us, “Supper starts around 5pm, people can choose the time they eat. People can have meals later than the allocated time.”

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.

The provider worked closely with healthcare professionals, including the GP. The registered manager told us the GP visited the home regularly. People had a multi-disciplinary record in their care plans. Where other health professionals visited the home, or referrals were made to external services this was clearly documented within the record, with details on what treatment or action had taken place. This meant staff were kept up to date with other professionals who were involved in people’s care.

The provider worked closely with the care home support team, who facilitated referrals to other healthcare professionals such as physiotherapists and district nurses. One external stakeholder told us, “Recommendations appear to be followed, and staff will ask for advice if unclear or difficulties arise. Staff will refer appropriately to [service].” This partnership approach enabled people to access timely specialist support.

Staff told us they worked well together, 1 staff member told us, “Like many care settings, busy periods can sometimes be challenging, but staff work together well.” Another staff member told us, “I think the current staff work really well together as a team and that reflects in the high morale.” Relatives also told us they thought staff worked well together, 1 relative told us, “They definitely all work well together from what I’ve seen.”

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.

Staff had a good understanding of the importance of supporting people to live healthy lives and were able to give meaningful examples of how they incorporated this into day-to-day practice. One staff member we spoke with told us, “We encourage [people] to be physically healthier through regular exercise sessions from a personal trainer, and by taking people out and around the village.” People were supported to go outdoors, this included walks around the garden and the local village. One person we spoke with told us, “The [staff] take me out for a walk sometimes.”

The provider facilitated a regular exercise class which was held by an external professional. One person we spoke with told us, “They take me out for walks and a coffee. We do exercisessometimes, they don’t miss anything here.” This meant people were encouraged and supported to remain active and improve their stamina and strength to improve their mobility.

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 and management participated in daily handovers where any changes in health or wellbeing were discussed, recorded, and acted upon.

Relatives confirmed that staff identified and responded promptly to changes in their family members’ health. One relative told us, “I think [person] had a couple of falls, they rang me when they happened.” Another relative told us, “They sort out [person’s] medicines, they tell me about any changes.” One relative told us, “[Person] had an infection recently and the doctor came the next day.”

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

The provider worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The MCA provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to make particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. 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 (MCA).

Where people required assistive technology to maintain their safety, we found best interest meetings had been recorded to demonstrate decision making. For example, 1 person required a falls sensor to alert staff when they were standing up. Mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions had been completed, along with rationale on why the least restrictive option was decided.

We observed staff knocking on doors before entering people’s rooms. Staff understood the importance of gaining consent before providing care. One staff member we spoke with told us, “I always knock before entering a person’s room, explain what I am doing, and ask for consent before providing care.” One person we spoke with told us, “Staff always knock first, they ask to come in.”