Pelham Grove 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 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 changed to requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 58 (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 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. For example, although care plans had been reviewed by the registered manager, they did not always reflect the most current or accurate information to guide staff on people’s current needs. The initial needs assessment for one person did not include the essential details required to determine whether the service could meet their needs, resulting in the provider being unable to provide the appropriate support once they were admitted.

However, we viewed other assessments completed by the provider which were detailed and accurately reflected people’s needs.

The provider did not always plan and deliver 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. For example, pre-admission assessments completed by the registered manager did not always include essential information about people’s needs. One person’s needs with regards to promoting their independence was not covered in their initial preadmission needs assessment.

However, staff followed advise and guidance provided by other health and social care professionals.

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. For example, records were kept of appointments people attended and the outcomes. The registered manager outlined the process for making referrals to other health and social care professionals and peoples care records evidenced appropriate and timely referrals were made on their behalf. One staff member told us, “Any referrals to GPs or other healthcare professionals are treated as a priority.”

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. For example, staff supported people to attend the majority of their health appointments; however, referrals to dental services were not always made in a timely way. Staff made appropriate referrals to other healthcare professionals when required, such as dieticians, and shared information to ensure people received the right input. Staff told us they promoted healthy lifestyles through mealtime choices and by encouraging participation in a range of in‑house activities. We observed people taking part in activities designed to promote wellbeing, including chair‑based exercises.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent and met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. For example, systems were in place when needed to record people’s food and fluid intake to monitor their nutrition and hydration. People’s health was monitored and monthly weights were checked to identify if there was any unexpected weight loss. Staff knew people well and took prompt action when they identified any changes to their health and wellbeing. A visiting professional told us, “Staff understand when referrals to our service are needed and will make sure, they have implemented all relevant food and fluid fortification advice we provide first before submitting the referral to us.”

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment. For example, where people lacked the capacity to make specific decisions, the provider had not consistently completed appropriate mental capacity assessments to support the restrictive practices in place. This was discussed on site with the registered manager, who gave assurances these practices would be reviewed and revisited going forward.

However, staff were observed seeking peoples consent before carrying out day‑to‑day care tasks, offering choices wherever possible and respecting peoples expressed wishes in routine interactions.