St Annes Residential 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.This is the first assessment for this newly registered 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 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 by the management team, together with people and their relatives before they moved into the home. Care plans were shaped from these discussions and detailed people’s needs, with guidance for staff on how to meet these. Reviews took place regularly to ensure that care was still in line with their needs and wishes. People and relatives told us that they felt involved in developing the care plans and their voices were honoured throughout. The electronic system updated in real time, so any changes were immediately available for staff.

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.

Staff and management used various assessment tools to ensure people’s needs were identified and safely met. For example, the Waterlow score was used to assess people’s likelihood of developing pressure areas, and we observed pressure relieving equipment in place for those who needed it. Policies were in line with national good practice guidelines and staff knew people well, meaning care was given in a person-centred way. People and their relatives told us they were involved in decision making and their views were evident throughout their care documentation.

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 management team and staff worked with external professionals to ensure people’s needs were met and that they were able to move between services in a smooth way. Relevant agencies had been involved in shaping people’s care plans, and any advice that had been offered was implemented. People’s needs were reviewed in collaboration with appropriate teams to ensure their care remained effective. The staff team worked well together and shared information in regular handovers to ensure everyone was aware of any changing needs.

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 referred to external professionals promptly when needed. People were supported to have a balanced diet which contained a good variety of healthy food choices. The chef told us how they discuss any dietary requirements with people and the management team to ensure people’s needs and preferences are met. People were happy with the quality of the food, and this was monitored to ensure a safe amount was being consumed.

People were supported with their oral hygiene in a way that was important to them. Preferences, including what type of toothpaste they wished to use, were documented in their care plans and support offered from staff was in line with these.

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 care and support was monitored to help improve outcomes for people. For example, people’s weights were carefully monitored so action could be taken promptly should there be concerns around this. Food and fluid charts had been implemented where necessary. One person did not eat very much at a lunchtime, when staff noticed this and realised their preference was to eat later in the day, their care was adjusted to meet this need.

People had routine health checks, including medication reviews. Where guidance had been provided, we observed this being followed to improve outcomes for people. For example, one person was seen being supported to mobilise to reduce swelling in their legs. A professional told us, “Staff always contact us if people develop any wounds. Care plans are updated, and they take note of the advice we offer. I’m sure our guidance is followed.”

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

People were supported to consent to their care. Signed consent forms had been utilised for people to agree to the provision of care in line with their assessed needs. Where people lacked the capacity to consent to care or make their own decisions, mental capacity assessments had been carried out along with best interest decisions. Staff had received training regarding the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and felt confident about this. Staff were knowledgeable about consent and worked within the principles of the MCA. Staff told us, "Yes, we always assume people have mental capacity. But even when they don’t, we ensure they are supported in the way they want.”