Waterfield 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 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 provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People and relatives confirmed they were involved and consulted about care and treatment needs. Changes to care and treatment was discussed with them.

People had their individual physical, mental and wellbeing care and treatment needs assessed before they moved into the service to ensure the service could meet their needs. Recognised clinical assessment tools were used to assess and review people’s care and treatment needs such as skin care, dietary and hydration needs. Clinical care and treatment systems and processes were in place that continually monitored needs to review progress and actions. This supported staff to provide effective care based on best practice guidance.

Care plans mostly provided staff with guidance on how to meet people’s care and support needs. Care plans were regularly reviewed to ensure guidance reflected people’s changing needs. Where possible, people and relatives were consulted and involved. People’s communication needs were recorded to promote effective communication. We found care plans were detailed, up to date and supportive to staff.

Staff told us how they accessed electronic care plans and care records to review guidance of how to meet people’s individual needs.

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.

People told us staff knew what they are doing and were confident and competent when providing care and support. A person said, “It’s very nice, I feel quite safe here, on the whole staff are well trained.”

People’s dietary needs, including cultural needs, and preferences were assessed and planned for. We observed people had a positive mealtime experience. Staff created a calm and social atmosphere. Staff supported people in a sensitive, unhurried way. The lunch time meal appeared appetising and well presented.

Staff spoken with knew about people’s dietary needs. People had their risk of malnutrition and dehydration assessed. Where risks were identified, care plans were in place and staff followed these. Care plans were in place for specific dietary needs such as diabetes. Staff monitored people’s weight and took action when required for example referrals to the GP or the dietician. Some people preferred to have their meals in their rooms and staff supported them to do this.

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.

People told us staff worked well as a team. A person said, “Staff all get on well together, I have got no concerns.” Staff told us that Waterfield House was a good place to work.

The provider had systems and processes that supported the exchange of information about people’s care and treatment needs with others. Records demonstrated that where required, timely referrals were made to external professionals.

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.

There was a varied programme of activities. People were engaged and supported to take part in exercises. A person said, “I did go to yoga, bingo, activities are very good, exercises with lots of encouragement, even though I am not going to activities she [activities co-ordinator] comes to see me and says when are you coming back?” Activities were adapted to enable people to participate at their level, enabling people with physical, sensory and cognitive impairments to join in.

Steps had been taken to widen participation and involvement within the community. People were provided with opportunities to take part in local community activities and local community members were invited into the service. For example, a trip out to coffee morning at the local church and a local coffee shop coming into the service.

Activities were adapted to enable people to participate at their level, enabling people with physical, sensory, and cognitive impairments to join in.

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 told us the service was meeting their needs. A person said, “It has come up to expectations, my [relative] chose the right place for me.”

Care plans were reviewed regularly and updated if people’s needs changed. The provider had systems and processes that monitored clinical care and treatment needs. Records confirmed actions had been taken to support people to achieve positive outcomes. For example, skin wounds and pressure sores were effectively managed resulting in healing and recovery.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Assessments of people’s capacity did not always contain sufficient detail.

Capacity assessments were recorded and were decision specific for example, determining place of residence.However, they would benefit from more detail and did not contain evidence of shared decision making.

People told us they were free to take make their own decisions. A person said, “I choose my clothes, I am not forced to do anything, they help wash me and help with pulling up my knickers.”Staff were observed to seek people’s consent before carrying out care tasks for example, giving medication or moving their wheelchair.

Staff were able to describe people’s rights to make unwise decisions and how they supported people to be as independent as they were able.