Ivy Court

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 assessed and care delivered in line with them.

There were clear evidence people’s wishes and preferences were consistently documented within their care plans. These records encompassed not only medical and support requirements but also captured details on how each person preferred to receive care. The documentation included personal preferences such as chosen waking times, favourite foods, hobbies and preferred social activities. This comprehensive approach ensured staff could provide support tailored to each person, making their care experience more meaningful and person-centred. People and families were involved in their care planning and reviewing of their care and support.

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 experienced a well organised and pleasant mealtime experience. During lunch, we observed staff supporting people in a calm and respectful way. The weekly menu was displayed in the dining room, and information about meal choices was readily available. People were offered drinks and snacks between meals, and they told us the food was nice and they had plenty to eat and drink. Records relating to people’s nutritional and hydration needs were detailed and up to date and reflected their individual requirements. One professional said, “Care is evidence‑based, personalised, and regularly reviewed to support good outcomes.”

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.

Systems were in place to support staff to share and pass on information about people’s care to enable them to offer consistent care. The management team and staff completed daily flash meetings and handover records and worked well as a team.

The service made referrals for people where additional support was required. One professional said, “The service communicates very well, if unsure about something a GP has written or prescribed, they have always reached out to clarifyand make sure information is correct. They notice and report very well, for example a mark or rash that wasn't there the day before staff always notice and go to GP for advice. The service meets regularly with the local GP practice to share and review people’s health.” Where people required medical appointments, the service liaised with family and other health professionals and ensured a multi-disciplinary approach was followed.

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’s health was consistently monitored to promote their wellbeing. Care plans and risk assessments were comprehensive and contained detailed information. They were reviewed regularly to keep them accurate and aligned with people’s current needs.

People had access to healthcare professionals and staff ensured their advice was followed. Referrals had been made to professionals regarding things such as, falls, mobility, nutrition and continence. One professional said, “When reviewing documents from the home I have found the evidence in the record keeping being well recorded and up to date. Care plans correspond well with daily notes, risk assessment and professional communications. I feel the home completes person-centred care planning and risk assessments.

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.

People’s outcomes were documented in care plans and showed actions taken to ensure these were met. For example, people who were prone to tissue damage, had appropriate repositioning plans in place to ensure their skin remained as healthy as possible.

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

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act 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 take decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and be as least restrictive as possible. We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA, and whether any conditions on authorisations to deprive a person of their liberty had the appropriate legal authority and were being met.

At our last assessment, we found the provider's systems to assess people's mental capacity and best interest decisions were not robust or effective to ensure people's rights were consistently upheld. At this assessment, we found improvements had been made.

The service demonstrated a robust commitment to working within the principles of the MCA. People were supported to make their own decisions wherever possible, and any decisions made on their behalf were carefully considered to be in their best interests and the least restrictive as possible. For example, we saw people had MCA assessments and best interests and care plans in place, which held information regarding their mental capacity and whether they were able to give consent for each specific task being undertaken. This ensured consent was appropriately sought and documented for all aspects of their care, in line with best practice and legal requirements.