Frome Care Village

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 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service 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.

People had pre-admission assessments and care plans that included risk assessment tools such as Waterlow and MUST. Staff used the providers electronic care systems to record updates. Relatives were involved at admission but not always in ongoing reviews, which were not consistently documented. The registered manager confirmed that staff skills were considered before agreeing to new admissions.

Relatives told us they were involved at admission but not always consulted about ongoing reviews. One family member said, “I was involved with the care plan, but there has been no review.” Another said, “I don’t know anything about a care plan.” This indicates a need for greater involvement. The registered manager confirmed reviews had taken place as part of a funding review for people but had not been recorded. They confirmed they would ensure future reviews were documented.

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.

Medicines were managed safely with regular audits and pharmacy reviews. Covert medication was authorised by GPs and pharmacists. Kitchen staff followed IDDSI (International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative) guidance and were kept informed about people’s nutrition and hydration needs. People were weighed regularly and dietary needs met.

People told us they liked the food, and we observed staff offering choices visually to support decision-making. One person said, “Lunch is always good and tasty”, another commented, “If you want something different, you just have to tell the chef, and he will do it.”

Weight monitoring and nutritional assessments were completed, and the provider’s senior management team reviewed these remotely to ensure timely action was taken. The cook confirmed they had enough stock to meet dietary requirements, including gluten-free and diabetic options.

Staff worked with external professionals to support people’s health needs.

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.

Staff worked collaboratively within the home and with external professionals to meet people’s needs. Staff described good teamwork and communication through handovers and group messaging. Professionals reported positive engagement in multidisciplinary discussions.

Staff felt supported by the new registered manager and induction lead. Comments included, “Things have massively improved. We get good supervision and training.” The culture was described as inclusive and respectful.

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 accessed healthcare professionals and enjoyed activities such as entertainers and animal therapy.

Relatives praised staff for promoting independence and choice. One said, “They go the extra mile to make things nice.” Improvements were noted in cleanliness and infection control.

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.

The provider monitored outcomes and took action to improve people’s care. Audits covered medicines, infection control and tissue viability. A new QR code system used by the provider, supported quality monitoring. Staff supervision and appraisal records were inconsistent, but plans were in place to improve this. Feedback from relatives and staff was sought through surveys and meetings. Actions were taken following concerns, such as extending chef hours to improve food temperature at mealtimes and introducing daily mattress checks.

We saw examples of improved outcomes for people. For instance, one person admitted on an end-of-life pathway regained independence through collaborative work with the team and external specialists. Another person with complex behavioural needs was supported to maintain family connections and access community activities, demonstrating creative and responsive care planning.

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

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. Staff sought consent and acted in line with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). Relatives confirmed staff respected people’s choices. One said, “They always ask before doing anything.”

Best interest decisions were recorded for interventions such as pressure mats and flu vaccines. DoLS (Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards) applications were submitted where restrictions applied. Staff were observed gaining consent before providing care.