Thurlaston Meadows Care Home Ltd

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 support requirements were now assessed either before they moved to the home, or promptly after they had moved in. People and relatives told us they were encouraged to be involved in their assessments and this helped to ensure people received the care they wanted. Where possible, people and relatives were encouraged to visit the home to decide if the care offered met people’s needs. One person said, “My daughter brought me to meet [registered manager’s name], and they took myself and my husband on a tour. She took us and our furniture in.” A relative explained their family member had decided to move into the home, because they had enjoyed a short stay on respite care at Thurlaston Meadows Care Home Ltd so much. The relative said, “The care home manager came over to [person’s name] house did a full assessment of her needs and her likes including her medical needs. Both [person’s name] and us as their family felt [person’s name] needs were listened to.” Staff were informed when new people moved into the home. A care plan based around people’s assessed needs was put in place, this included their likes and dislikes, and their health and care needs. Staff gave examples showing how people were supported to settle into the home. For example, people had the opportunity to visit the home and choose their room. One staff member told us, “Someone who wanted to stay here came to have lunch they came with their family to see if it met their needs.” People’s needs continued to be reviewed as their needs changed. People and relatives told us they were involved in on-going assessments. This helped to ensure people’s preferences and needs continued to be met and care plans updated to reflect people’s wishes and care 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 were complimentary about the meals, drinks and snacks available and the support they had to have enough to eat and drink. One person said, “The food is amazing we have plenty to eat and drink.” Another person told us, “The food is good. They [staff] would get you something else if you don’t like what is on the menu.” A relative told us, “The food is brilliant mum loves it.” Staff understood how important presentation and portion size was in encouraging people to have enough to eat and drink. We saw staff consistently applied this knowledge and knew people’s food and drink preferences. Staff knew if people needed a particular texture of food or type of diet to remain well. Staff gave us examples showing how they ensured they supported people to have the choices they wanted whilst remaining well. For example, by providing diabetic alternatives to some foods. Systems were in place to ensure staff met regularly to communicate information across teams, review their nutritional practice and ensure there was a consistent approach to ensuring people had enough to eat and drink and any changes in people’s nutritional and hydration needs were acted on. People’s care plans contained guidance for staff to follow to ensure people were assisted to eat and drink safely. However, we found one instance where the type of diet one person required was not reflected in the information held by catering staff and the person’s care plan. People told us they were provided with the drinks they wanted, but we found people’s fluid charts did not always demonstrate they had reached their fluid targets. The registered manager acknowledged recording of fluid intake needed to be strengthened and continued to address this during the inspection.

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 together to ensure their needs were met. People were assisted to access help from other health and social care providers when they wanted this. One person said, “The GP comes once per week. I see the chiropodist and the district nurse if I need to.” Staff worked with their colleagues and with other health and social care professionals to ensure people had opportunities to promptly obtain specialist advice and support. Staff gave examples showing how they had escalated any concerns to people’s GPs, speech and language therapists, district nurses and mental health services. This helped to ensure people’s physical health and their well-being needs were met. Health and social care professionals told us staff at the home made appropriate and timely referrals to them. One health and social care professionals described effective joint working with staff, which minimised disruption for people living at the home. The health and social care professionals said, “Whatever we ask them to do, they do it.”

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’s care plans provided staff with the guidance they needed to promote people’s health and well-being. For example, in relation to catheter care and how to reassure people when they were anxious. We found some people had improved health outcomes in relation to their diabetes. This had led to a reduction in the amount of insulin they needed. Staff offered people a varied choice of meals and activities which included gentle exercise, which helped to promote people’s health and well-being.

The provider routinely monitored most 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 staff carefully monitored aspects of their health and escalated any concerns to their other health and social care professionals or their GPs. One person explained staff regularly checked the equipment they needed to remain well. Relatives said staff identified any changes in their family member’s health and sought advice and treatment for them as appropriate. A health and social care professional told us, “The people who live here are well looked after. If they are concerned, they call us. They are always very responsive to someone’s needs.” Processes were in place to monitor key aspects of people’s individual health. Most people’s health monitoring was undertaken regularly undertaken and recorded. Staff used this information to decide if referrals should be made to other health and social care professionals, such as speech and language therapists. However, we found checks and recording for one person’s physical health had not been consistently undertaken. There was no evidence of harm to the person. The registered manager gave us assurances they would address this.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People told us staff checked with them before they provided care. People knew who could support them to make some decisions, if they needed assistance. Staff checked people were consenting to the care offered before providing it. Staff recognised when people may need more assistance or time to make their own decisions. For example, by explaining what options were available, and giving people information which helped them to decide what care or leisure opportunities they may want to undertake. People’s care records confirmed if any other person had the right to make some decisions on their behalf. People’s care records confirmed family members and other health and social care professionals views were sought, where key decisions had been made in people’s best interests. The provider had identified where and made application to the supervisory body, where deprivation of liberty safeguards needed to be authorised.