Little Gaynes Rest 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 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.

At our last inspection, we found that pre-admission assessments were carried out. However, these were not always comprehensive as they did not fully cover people’s needs.

During this assessment, we found people's needs were fully assessed before they started using the service. The assessment included all aspects of care, such as the person’s mobility, their nutritional needs, personal hygiene care, medicines and social lifestyle. This helped to ensure if the service would be able to meet people's needs.

The management team obtained as much information as possible from people, their relatives as well as from the local authorities, which paid for the care packages to ensure they had enough information to enable them to meet people’s needs.

From the information obtained during the assessment process, a care plan would be developed for staff to follow and this helped to ensure people’s individualised needs were met.

People received personalised care, which was recorded in their care plans and reflected their wishes and preferences. People's needs were assessed and reviewed on a continual basis.

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 good practice and standards.

The provider ensured people received care and support based on the latest good practice and relevant guidance. For example, for people living with dementia, the provider ensured that the environments were homely, and free from unnecessary clutter, which enhanced the quality of life for people who used the service.

Staff had the skills and knowledge to look after people who have dementia and staff were aware of the nature of their condition. This helped to ensure people received compassionate and effective care from staff.

People commented positively about the way staff cared for them. A person told us, “The staff are very good.” A relative told us, “I am happy with the staff and the home.”

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people.

The management team worked closely with other health professionals to help ensure people had access to the services they required to maintain their health. For example, the provider worked with district nurses to support people who had a pressure wound. They also worked with the local chiropody services to ensure people’s nail care was maintained especially for people who had certain medical conditions.

Staff monitored people's health and welfare and reported any concerns to the management team who made referrals to health care professionals where required.

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.

The provider had strong partnerships with healthcare professionals and this ensured people received coordinated care. Staff understood who to contact for advice and supported people to attend appointments, promoting their ongoing health and wellbeing. Information about the involvement of healthcare professionals in each person’s care was clearly recorded in their care plans.

Staff helped people get to their healthcare appointments, making sure their health and wellbeing were well looked after. Relatives told us they were kept informed if there were any changes in their loved one care needs.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent.

Staff monitored people's health and welfare and reported any concerns to the management team. Where needed, a member of the management team would make referrals to health care professionals as appropriate. For example, we noted the management team had contacted the fall clinic for advice for a person who had frequent falls.

We noted the GP visited the service weekly and staff would inform them if they had any concerns about people’s health needs.

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

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA, and whether any conditions on authorisations to deprive a person of their liberty had the appropriate legal authority and were being met.

At our last inspection, we found that appropriate legal authorisations were in place where needed to deprive a person of their liberty. However, conditions relating to those authorisations were not always being met. Some people had Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Authorisations, which had conditions attached to them.

At this inspection, we found improvements had been made. Conditions attached to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were being met. For example, where people had a condition to administer their medicines covertly, records showed this condition was being met.

The management team and staff monitored people's mental capacity to ensure that they were able to make appropriate decisions and where needed, supported them to do so. Care records of people contained information about their mental capacity and what support they required to make decisions.

DoLS applications were made when they expired. Records showed dates they had been applied for and authorised or if still pending authorisation.

Records showed that people, where appropriate, had consented to the care and support provided. Where people were unable to make their own decisions, there were MCA assessments in place.

People did not raise any concerns with us about how staff treated them.