Falcon House Residential 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.

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 67 (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 ensured people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The registered manager had identified that further work was needed to ensure people, and where appropriate their family members, were consistently involved in assessments and care plan reviews, including when updates were made to care records.

Care plans were reviewed and updated regularly to ensure they reflected people’s current circumstances, preferences and desired outcomes. Records contained information about people’s health conditions, communication needs, personal histories and the support they required. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the people they supported and took time to understand what was important to them, how they preferred to communicate and how they wished to live their lives.

This helped staff provide personalised care that reflected people’s individual needs, preferences and choices, while supporting them to achieve positive outcomes and maintain their wellbeing.
 

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 spoke positively about the quality of the food and the choices available to them. Staff understood people's dietary needs, preferences and cultural requirements and worked flexibly to ensure people received meals they enjoyed. A person told us, “The food is very good, get choice every day, they change the water jug daily, they are always saying drink plenty, at lunch there is water, wine or juice.” Another person said, “Love it here, the food is good.”

Where risks were identified, staff used recognised assessment tools, including the malnutrition universal screening tool (MUST), and worked with healthcare professionals to monitor needs and effectively manage risks. A professional told us, “The home also follows through on investigations and monitoring. Staff will sometimes remind the practice when follow up is due, such as a repeat chest Xray or clinical review. This provides an additional safety net and shows that residents’ healthcare needs are being actively monitored.”
 

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.

Staff told us they had positive relationships with community healthcare professionals. One staff member said, “The community matron visits weekly, but we can contact them at any time. The GP visits when we need them; they are all really good.” This demonstrated effective joint working to support people’s health and wellbeing.

Staff also spoke positively about teamwork and communication within the service. One staff member told us, “I feel supported and valued 100% by my team. I know I could rely on anyone if I needed help.” Another staff member said, “I am supported by my team.” These comments reflected a positive team culture where staff felt supported and able to work together to meet people’s 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 had access to a range of healthcare professionals when required, and staff worked closely with external services to ensure their health needs were met. Staff followed the advice and recommendations of healthcare professionals, including GPs, community nurses and specialist teams, to help achieve positive outcomes for people. This helped ensure care remained effective and responsive to changes in people’s health and wellbeing.

Staff encouraged people to maintain active and healthy lifestyles in line with their abilities and preferences. The registered manager told us people participated in weekly exercise sessions, which helped to promote mobility, strength and overall wellbeing. People were also supported to engage in meaningful activities and maintain social connections, contributing to their physical and emotional health.
 

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to support positive outcomes and drive continuous improvement. Systems were in place to review care records, monitor health needs and identify any changes in people’s wellbeing. However, we identified some inconsistencies in the completion of monitoring records, particularly those relating to catheter care and fluid input and output charts.

Accurate recording of fluid intake, urine output and catheter care is important to monitor people’s health, identify potential concerns at an early stage and ensure timely action is taken when needed. During our review of records, we found some gaps and inconsistencies, which meant it was not always possible to demonstrate monitoring had been completed as intended. While there was no evidence people had come to any harm and staff were able to describe the care and support being provided, records did not consistently reflect this.

The registered manager acknowledged these shortfalls and had identified the need to strengthen oversight of monitoring records. They recognised further work was required to ensure staff completed monitoring charts accurately and consistently and that records provided a clear account of the care delivered.
 

The provider sought people’s consent to care and treatment. However, further work was needed to ensure assessments relating to consent, capacity and any restrictions were consistently documented, so there was clear evidence that people’s rights were fully considered and supported in line with relevant legislation.

We identified areas where the provider’s arrangements for assessing and recording people’s capacity to make specific decisions could be further strengthened. The service was supporting 5 people living with dementia; however, no Mental Capacity Act (MCA) assessments or Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications had been completed. The registered manager told us they were reviewing this area and were in the process of determining whether formal MCA assessments and DoLS referrals were required.

Staff told us they believed these people had capacity to make decisions about their care and treatment. However, where there was reason to consider whether a person’s capacity may be affected, this had not always been formally assessed or recorded. Following the assessment, the registered manager told us they had completed a capacity assessment for 1 person in relation to specific decisions and would continue to review the needs of other people using the service.

Despite these recording gaps, we observed staff seeking people’s consent before providing support throughout the inspection. Staff demonstrated an understanding of the importance of gaining consent and had completed training on the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. This helped to promote people’s involvement in decisions about their care and treatment while the registered manager worked to strengthen documentation and oversight in this area.