Appletree Court 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. At the last inspection this key question was rated Requires improvement. At this inspection, the service had improved 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

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 told us they participated in initial and ongoing assessments. Records were person centred and reflected what was important to the person.

The registered manager told us they ensured each person’s needs were assessed before they moved into the home. Initial assessments were comprehensive, covering all aspects of the person and the care they required.

Nationally recognised tools were used to help assess people’s needs for example in relation to eating and drinking and the management of pressure sores.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice.

People’s nutrition and hydration needs, including dietary and cultural preferences were assessed and planned for. Some people were at risk of choking and had been assessed by a speech and language therapist (SALT). Staff followed the SALT advice to ensure people ate and drank safely.

We observed people being supported by staff to make informed choices about their food and drinks. Staff were seen to be responsive, attentive and supported people in line with their eating and drinking care plan.

Best practice guidance in food safety was practiced. The provider had satisfactory hygiene controls and practices in place, and they complied with food safety regulations.

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 a collaborative approach in supporting people’s care needs. People’s care records confirmed referrals to external health and social care professionals were made when required and in a timely manner. Care records confirmed recommendations made were implemented.

Systems and processes were in place to share information with internal and external health and social care professionals. Information sharing was positive and supported effective working across organisations. This ensured continuity of care.

At our last inspection we recommended that the provider developed a more dementia friendly environment.

At this assessment we found a number of improvements had been made in this area including the recruitment of a dementia ambassador. Their role included providing specialist training for staff and advice to the activities coordinators.

Signage and pictorial aids had been installed to help people living with dementia navigate their way around and memory boxes had been introduced to assist people reminisce.

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 told us they were supported to access a range of health care professionals. A relative told us, “There is a doctor who visits weekly” and “What is good with this place apart from care is that there is a structure and they have clinical lead, dementia lead, I know that they went to specialised training, they have a contact with local medical college, so students have 6 weeks placement. There are organized oral care presentations not only for staff but for residents and relatives, everybody is welcome to come.”

Care records contained detailed information about people’s health conditions and how these might affect people. There were regular visits from health care professionals including the GP, chiropodist, and tissue viability nurse.

External professionals said the staff and registered manager collaborated very closely with them and communication was good.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. This supported positive and consistent outcomes for people which met both clinical and people’s own expectations.

There was evidence of regular reviews and action being taken immediately following any changes to people’s health needs. The service worked closely with healthcare professionals who knew people well and followed their advice to help meet people’s changing needs.

Some people had lived at the service for many years and were settled. Systems and processes were in place to continually monitor and improve people’s outcomes

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

People told us they were consulted by staff in all aspects of their daily care, and their choices were respected.

The provider met the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People told us staff asked for their consent and involved them in decisions about their care and support.

Staff were knowledgeable around the principles of the MCA. They were able to give examples in relation to this. They told us they always sought consent before supporting people.