Burlington Mews 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 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’s needs were assessed by the management team, together with people and their relatives before they moved into the home. A relative told us, “The transition process was quick, and we were given questionnaires to fill out which gave the home more information on [person’s] likes and dislikes to get to know them better.” Care plans were shaped from these discussions and detailed people’s needs. Reviews took place regularly to ensure that care was still in line with people’s needs and wishes. The nominated individual told us, “We have resident of the day where we review their care plan to ensure it is meeting their 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 and their relatives told us they were involved in decision making and their views were evident throughout their care documentation. Care plans were person centred and detailed. They included nutrition and hydration needs. A person told us, “Food is excellent. We have a menu available on the table, and we can choose what meals we want”. Staff used assessment tools to ensure people’s needs were identified and safely met. For example, the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) was used to assess people’s likelihood of malnutrition. Policies were in line with national good practice guidelines and staff knew people well.

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.

There was good communication and joint working between the service and professionals. We received positive feedback from people and professionals. One professional told us, “We started working with Burlington Mews since they opened and they have been engaging with our service on a regular basis.” Staff had good understanding of people in their care and could provide useful information about any changes or concerns they have identified to professionals. Paperwork we saw demonstrated collaborative working, with staff and professionals sharing information about people and their needs.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

A relative told us, “[person’s] mobility has declined and I believe this is due to the home’s lack of promoting independence and mobility. I arranged a special day out for [person], however we could not get [person] into the car due to their mobility”. We were also informed that the person’s mobility scooter was not charged so was not able to attend the planned day which had a negative effect on their wellbeing.

The provider supported people to engage in activities within the home when they were arranged, however, due to staffing levels, staff were not always able to provide activities. Feedback gathered from staff report that they had to prioritise people’s personal care needs, which allowed little to no time to engage people with meaningful activities. Assessments and support of people’s health needs were met. The nominated individual and senior staff had reviewed each person’s care plans and made referrals to health specialists to ensure that health needs were being effectively supported.

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 plans detailed their care needs including specific health or dietary conditions, preferences about their support and how staff ensured these were met. People had routine health checks, including medication reviews. The provider worked with the GP when monitoring conditions. The service demonstrated they were reactive to concerns raised by relatives and quickly resolved issues to improve people’s outcomes. A relative told us, “[person] had a fall, but they rang me and kept me informed and reassured me that they will check on him throughout the day”. The nominated individual told us, “We work closely with the community matron team, all new residents are reviewed by our GP service, and we ensure people have diabetic and seizure care plans when appropriate to ensure we support people”. Professionals echoed this and confirmed that the provider worked with other services to ensure support is provided in a timely manner.

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

People were asked for consent, and this was documented in both their care plans and their daily activity notes. Care plans evidenced people’s preferences, for example whether they preferred female or male staff for personal care. Staff had knowledge of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS) and the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and understood the importance of gaining consent prior to supporting people. There were 3 people in receipt of DoLS at the time of our inspection with the correct paperwork in place.