Marnel Lodge 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.

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 were effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Care plans and risk assessments were completed with people and were regularly reviewed.

People had communication care plans in place and documents to take to hospital with them when required. Staff told us they were kept informed of changes made to care plans, so they always had the most up-to-date information.

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.

Universally recognised tools were used to continually assess people’s needs, including those relating to skin health and nutrition. This supported a good standard of assessment.

Where assessed as required, staff recorded food and fluid intake to ensure people had sufficient fluids and nutrition. Where additional support was required, staff made referrals to relevant healthcare professionals.

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.

People had care documents which could be printed out and used when they were accessing hospital services.

People’s choices and preferences were always communicated so a consistent approach was maintained between services.

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.

People were supported with a nutritionally balanced diet. Weight was monitored where assessed as relevant. People had access to activities that supported their health and wellbeing, including armchair exercises and walks. A minibus was available to take people on trips.

Relatives were positive about people being supported to live healthier lives. One relative told us, “They [staff members] seem to have the right skills and knowledge to help them, and they are maintaining their weight.”

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Staff worked collaboratively to plan and deliver people’s care, reduce risks and achieve the best outcomes for them. The registered manager told us, “We don’t have any home-acquired pressure wounds.” They described how staff had managed a pressure wound that a person had when they moved into the service, and which had completely healed.

One relative told us their relative had fallen. They told us, “They [Managers and staff] took measures immediately and put a bedside rail on the bed and a sensor mat on the floor. It was all done very well and the requirements needed were automatically put in place.”

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

Where necessary, mental capacity assessments were completed in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Where a person was deemed to lack capacity, a best interests meeting was held with the person, their relative and relevant others to support positive, least restrictive decision-making. A staff member told us, “We involve the right people and honour the resident's past wishes and beliefs when acting in their best interests.”

We reviewed people’s care records, which demonstrated consent was sought, and we observed staff gaining people’s consent throughout the inspection.