Weir Gardens Nursing 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 under the new provider of this 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 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Managers did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Staff told us they involved people and their relatives in care reviews; however, we found records did not evidence the person or their relatives had been involved in this process. Peoples identified needs were not always met. For example, 1 person required frequent support with oral hygiene, due to the increased risk of aspiration. Aspiration is when something you swallow enters your airway. Care was not always provided in line with their assessed needs. This increased the risk of aspirational pneumonia and other oral health issues. Staff reviewed people’s care plans regularly. However, staff did not always identify some people’s care plans had conflicting or missing information. We discussed this with the provider. The registered manager was aware care plans needed to be reviewed and was taking action to address this.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. Staff did not always deliver care in line with best practice guidance. For example, 1 person had a catheter, their care records were not written in line with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and lacked detail around the day-to-day management. This increased the risk of infection.
Staff used nationally recognised tools, such as Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) for nutrition and Waterlow assessment for the risk of developing pressure ulcers, to assess and manage people’s risks. A health professional told us, “Staff are very good at getting in touch for advice. They are good with communication; whatever advice I give them they take on board”.
 

The staff team worked well with each other and with external professionals to support people. Systems and processes were in place to share information with internal and external health and social care professionals. For example, where people required admission to hospital, they had hospital passports which contained important information to inform hospital staff about their needs and wishes. Staff told us they discussed any new admission during handover and information was available for them to read on the electronic care records. One staff member said, “We work well as a team and supported each other”. We spoke with health professionals who regularly visited the service. One professional told us, “Staff are always extremely helpful and follow up on things with me, communication is good”.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. People had access to health care services. One person told us, “My medication is managed for me. I’m having my eyes and teeth checked too”. Staff supported people had access to healthcare services. One person told us they had regular visits from the chiropodist, and we saw health care professionals visiting people during our assessment. Where appropriate, referrals to health care professionals had been made.

The provider monitored people’s care and treatment. One person had an increase in falls the manager told us following a review of the incident reports and discussion with the person alternative measures in place to reduce the risk of falls. However, we found monitoring records to support people's everyday needs were not always consistently completed. For example, some people required support to reposition to maintain or improve their skin health, records showed that support was not always provided in line with guidance in their care plans. This increased the risk of developing skin damage. The registered manager told us they had shared our findings with the staff team to ensure improvements were made so more consistent documentation would be completed.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Leaders and staff worked within the principles of the MCA. Consent was considered and where people had been assessed as lacking capacity, their relatives or lasting power of attorney had been consulted regarding decisions in relation to care and treatment, so these were made in people’s best interest. Staff confirmed and records showed they had received training in the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and demonstrated a good understanding of the principles of the MCA. Staff we spoke with understood which people had capacity and those who needed support to make day to day decisions. One staff member told us, “If a person lacks capacity, we help them to make a decision, if they have capacity, we have to respect the decision they make”.