Casa di Lusso

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 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.

Before people came to the home a pre- admission assessment was completed to ensure the home could meet their needs. A checklist was in place for people moving into the home, this included, ensuring risk assessments were completed, dietary information shared with the kitchen and specialist equipment was in place. This checklist is signed off by the registered manager when it is complete to ensure no areas are missed. The registered manager told us and an audit confirmed new people had a formal care review within 72 hours of admission, followed about 4 to 6 weeks after admission and then monthly to 6 monthly or as needs changed.

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 registered manager and provider monitor remotely that people were receiving the care required on the electronic care system.

A health care professional who delivers training to care settings told us, “The whole team is very organised, making sure all the staff are aware of the training they need to attend. The staff attending the training are very engaging.”

People’s nutrition and hydration needs were identified and met. People chose what they wanted to eat and drink. People when needed, received support with their meals and drinks. We observed a pleasant dining experience during our visits. Staff had laminated picture menus they showed people to help with their choice of meal. Everybody was supported to use antibacterial wipes prior to lunch.

People told us they were happy with the food at the home and could have alternatives if they wanted. The kitchen team had clear information about people’s dietary needs. A staff member told us as part of their role they oversee the lunchtime meals across the home, offering help and support. They also undertake a mealtime audit to look for areas for improvement.

People and relatives have the opportunity to join a ‘Food committee’ with the chef, to discuss menu planning to ensure the food at the home is what people would like.

Some staff told usthat snackswere not availableat night for people whorequestedthem. The registered manager confirmed the kitchen store was always open and they had a new system to monitor that snacks were always accessible on the units. The kitchen staff also prepared special foods for people on special diets and consistencies for overnight.

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.

Systems were in place to ensure information about people was shared appropriately with other services when needed.

The staff team worked effectively together because there were systems in place which helped keep staff up to date. This included regular staff meetings, daily handover meetings, flash meetings and a messaging system where important information was shared.

A health and social care professional told us, “The staff/management are approachable and easy to work with, which makes collaboration smooth and effective. They maintain good communication with both families and professionals, ensuring that everyone involved is included in the care process.”

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 were supported to access a range of health care professionals and staff monitored people’s health and well-being daily. There were regular visits from health care professionals including GPs and chiropodists. As this is a nursing home, there was a nurse on site daily to help monitor people’s needs, escalating concerns quickly if people’s health deteriorated.

People and relatives said they were supported to see health care professionals as needed. Comments included, “If I say that I think that she needs a doctor, they are on to it straight away.”

Resident and relative meetings were taking place on a regular basis and one of the agenda items in the July 2025 meeting was ‘wellbeing’. This meant staff recognised the importance of supporting people with their wellbeing and what mattered to them.

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 monitored people’s health daily and escalated concerns if people’s conditions changed.

People with a greater risk of malnutrition had regular weights recorded and staff monitored daily food and fluid intakes to ensure people remained healthy. The providers quality audit monitored nutrition and hydration risks.

The registered manager is required by the provider to undertake a daily formal walk around to monitor that people are receiving the care and treatment they require. The registered manager was very knowledgeable about people’s individual needs.

The provider told people about their rights around consent. However, staff did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

People had been assessed for their capacity to consent to aspects of their care. When people were assessed as lacking capacity to make specific decisions, best interest decisions were decided. These were documented and showed who was involved in the decision-making process and how the decision had been reached. However, these were basic and required more information to be in line with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 code of practice. Work was being undertaken regarding this.

Staff knew about consent and had received appropriate training. One member of staff told us, “I’ve had training on the Mental Capacity Act, and I know about DoLS, who has one, and what restrictions are in place.” Another said when asked about DoLS, “The nurses are the ones applying for resident’s DoLS and we receive the restrictions from the nurses’ email.”

However, staff were not consistently supporting individuals in line with their best interests and in line with, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. The management teamhad identified this as an area for improvement and had put in placemultiple initiatives to improve staff knowledge and practice in these areas. This included, further training, a workshop with the nurses and the senior carers and pocket cards with the 5 main MCA principles and a workbook. To ensure this was monitored they had added this concern to the homes service improvement plan, which was regularly reviewed.