Covent House

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 prior to using the service and reviewed on an ongoing basis.

Senior staff developed care plans from assessments, for each identified risk or care need, to guide staff on how to support people to meet their needs safely and effectively.

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 involved people in planning their care and support. Care was tailored to individuals.

People’s nutritional needs were assessed and met. Staff encouraged people to enjoy a healthy balanced diet but also respected their choices and decisions in relation to food and drinks. People had access to specialist diets where required, such as fortified meals or texture-modified diets. Where individuals had specific dietary needs, these were clearly recorded in their care plans to ensure care and catering staff were aware of the diet and support required.

People and relatives told us there was enough to eat and drink in the home, but we received mixed views about the food. Comments included, “The food is good, there’s a choice of 2 meals and there is access to snacks such as fresh fruit, crisps and biscuits. They have a protected mealtime and family are encouraged to avoid visiting, but I have watched the meal service and how everything was presented looked very good,” and, “The food could be better. The fish fingers and fish cakes are not very nice, so I don't have them. They will provide an alternative if you ask. There is more than enough to eat so no one needs to be hungry, but the quality isn't up to much.”

We fed this back to the provider who planned to explore this further with people and the catering team. Menu choices and food were discussed during monthly meetings with relatives and people, so would be raised via this forum also.

Staff 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 closely with other agencies and professionals such as GPs, tissue viability nurse, podiatrists, nurse practitioners and physiotherapists.

Staff supported people to complete and maintain emergency admission packs and ‘This is me’ documents to be used to share important information with other services in the event of a person being transferred, for example, to hospital. These documents contained details about people’s care and support needs as well as things that were important to them and their personal preferences, likes and dislikes. Staff regularly reviewed the documents with people to ensure they remained up to date.

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 and relatives told us staff arranged for people to see the health professionals, when required. A relative said “There is very good access to medical care, and they (staff) are really good at getting in touch with the GP, if needed. Things get sorted, they are on the ball with that and they can provide an escort to appointments. [Person] has regular foot care, which is private, but (staff) offered to ask the GP to refer [Person] to podiatry, which [Person] declined.”

Care records documented the engagement people had with health care professionals and recommendations were incorporated into care plans and followed by staff.

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 regularly reviewed people’s care plans with them and their relatives, to ensure they reflected their needs.

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

Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and associated codes of practice. A staff member told us, “I always ask the resident for their consent to care and if they say no I would go back and try again in a short while. I always explain everything, especially during personal care. If I felt an individual could not make their own decisions about care then I would fill in the relevant MCA documents. If the resident is deemed not to have capacity, then decisions can be made for that individual’s best interests.”

People made their own choices and decisions on a day-to-day basis about what they did, what they ate and how they filled their time. A relative said, “They (staff) do get consent. We see it all the time whenever they do anything, there is a lot of interaction to explain things and to work with [Person]. They are very collaborative.”

The provider was working within the principles of the MCA. People’s capacity to make specific decisions were assessed and best interest decisions were made on their behalf if they lacked capacity for restrictive practices such as bed rails, sensor mats or lap belts.