Highbury 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

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 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. Staff took time to meet people, their relatives and those involved in their care to understand what was important to them prior to any admission to the service. The registered manager told us, “We have a good relationship with the families, and we all know each other well. If they have concerns, they call me, and I shall call them. Reviews are completed monthly we will call families or speak to them directly at the service. We have formal relationships and keep them updated all the time. I think we communicate well with families and involve them in the development of the care planning process.”

Relatives were positive about the assessment process. One relative told us, “They carried out a thorough assessment of my relative’s needs prior to them moving in. To move into the home a care plan was written, and they helped me with end-of-life plans. We did all that when she arrived. It was good to all be on the same page.”

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. The provider completed recognised national assessment tools and guidance to ensure care was assessed and planned for effectively. Staff demonstrated they understood best practice. For example, staff followed a health professional’s advice to improve one persons independence so they no longer relied on a transfer aid to move but could do this without support.

A staff member told us, “We had guidance from health teams to ensure we completed exercises with the person. We did it as often as we were asked, now the person doesn’t need the equipment anymore, they have made great progress.”

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. For example, staff worked with a range of agencies including health and social care professionals to support people to achieve positive outcomes. A health professional told us, “We work together closely to ensure we meet the needs of the patients here. Relationships with the management and staff teams have developed well and procedures deployed. They are always very prepared for my weekly visit here; the teams are very proactive at raising concerns with me.”

Relatives also told us they had developed positive relationships with health professionals and staff teams. One relative told us, “My relative has complex mental and physical health needs. Staff make sure [Name] is supported to have their blood test every three months and staff always inform me of any information if there is a visit from a health professional.”

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.

They were able to provide examples of this, including supporting people to increase their independence using appropriate assessed equipment, such as privately made bespoke wheelchairs.

People were observed to be using the accessible garden. Staff supported people to sit in the garden with sun hats and enjoy an ice-lolly. Some people were taking part in physical chair activities and others were playing games at the garden table. One person told us, “I enjoy the activities, I join in the dominoes and armchair aerobics.”

We saw people were supported to have food and drinks of their choice. Though there were no visual references to food choices, we saw staff consulted with people to provide options and support them to make choices.One relative told us, “[Name] loves the food here, they have a varied menu, and it looks good, always fresh.”

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.

Staff supported them to attend essential health appointments and to maintain regular contact with relatives and peers to achieve this outcome. Where a person’s health was declining, staff monitored care and support in line with best practice to help them stay as comfortable as possible.

A person told us they were supported by staff to maintain their friendships with their local church and attend a service on Tuesdays. “I like to make sure I see my friends regularly. Sometimes they come here, and the staff are lovely, they make us all a cup of tea.” A relative told us, “If I can’t get [Name] to church on a Sunday, the staff set up a Zoom call to ensure they can attend church virtually. They maintain their routine. If I ask them to do anything, they will.”

Activities were available for people to join in throughout the week if they wished to. There were leaflets in the foyer informing relatives of an upcoming Father’s Day BBQ being held at the home. Another relative told us, “They do all sorts, cooking, they made pizzas not long-ago [Name] really enjoyed that. And the music, they love the music. There is a Facebook page for the home, and they share photos of all the activities and outings they arrange.”

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

Records showed people’s mental capacity had been considered in decisions about their care. Decision specific assessments had been completed; however, not all mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were completed in line with the Mental Capacity Act or the providers own policy. Some assessments lacked detail regarding how the person was supported to make the decision and although other people who know the person well were recorded in the decision process, their contributions and opinions had not always been recorded.This meant it was not clear how people had been supported as fully as possible in decisions about their care and treatment. Without clear recording it is difficult to ascertain decisions are least restrictive and, in the person’s best interest.

Staff understood their responsibilities regarding consent and mental capacity. They ensured people did not have any unlawful restrictions on their right to freedom and liberty.

We observed staff gaining consent from people before providing care and support. Staff also supported people to make decisions about their care, such as deciding what their meal preferences were or if they wanted to sit in the garden or join in activities.