Southlands Court 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

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 62 (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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People had care and support plans. They required further work to ensure they were personalised, holistic, strengths-based and reflected their needs and aspirations. This included their physical and mental health needs, communication support and sensory needs. Care and support plans were being reviewed at pace and personalised detail was being added as part of the provider’s service improvement plan.

Various evidence-based practice tools were being utilised to strengthen information about people’s individual care and support needs. For example, in relation to people’s overall health, well-being, and communication needs.

Staff understood people’s current care and support needs, as evidenced through our discussions with them.

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 confirmed their care and support was delivered in the way they wanted by staff.

People’s specific nutrition and hydration needs were met in line with current guidance.

Staff confirmed they had received accredited training to ensure they could provide people with individualised care and support in line with evidence-based good practice.

The provider’s systems ensured staff were up to date with national legislation, evidence-based good practice and required standards.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. They did not always share their assessment of people’s needs when people moved between different services.

Staff increasingly knew how to respond to specific health and social care needs. Staff member’s confidence about the care they delivered and their understanding about how they contributed to people’s health and wellbeing was growing as a result of input from health and social care professionals and the changes being made as part of the provider’s service improvement plan. This work needed embedding and sustaining in practice.

Staff said people’s care and support plans and risk assessments were increasingly becoming more detailed to help them provide appropriate care and support on a consistent basis. For example, enabling them to recognise and escalate changes in people’s physical health.

Health and social care professionals confirmed the service was working better with them to ensure people’s care and support needs were met.

People were supported to see appropriate health and social care professionals when needed, to meet their healthcare needs. For example, their GP and the community nurse.

Records were increasingly demonstrating how staff recognised changes in people’s needs, and ensured other health and social care professionals were involved to encourage health promotion.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Daily notes and monitoring charts did not always evidence care and support plans were being followed. It was established this was a recording issue only. Notes were not being written at the time they should have been and this was partly due to staff not being aware of the importance of this. This was being addressed through increased monitoring by the management team and the introduction of daily checks. They also reinforced with staff the importance of accurate clinical documentation for both safety and regulatory assurance. As a result of the additional scrutiny, compliance was improving. The provider recognised improvements needed to be sustained and embedded in practice.

People confirmed they were encouraged and supported to maintain their health and well-being.

People were involved in regularly monitoring their health, including health assessments and checks. Where appropriate, this was completed with health and care professionals’ involvement.

Regular reviews were now taking place to ensure people’s current and changing needs were being met.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The service was focused on identifying risks to people’s health and wellbeing and on how to support people to prevent deterioration. For example, ensuring staff had the skills, knowledge and training to deliver safe evidence-based care and support.

Approaches to monitoring people’s care and treatment, and their outcomes, were being developed and implemented in practice in collaboration with health and social care professionals. This ensured continuous improvements were being made to people’s individual care and support.

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

For people assessed as lacking mental capacity for certain decisions, work was progressing to develop more comprehensive mental capacity assessments, and to improve the recording of best interest decisions in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). This was being managed through reviews of people’s care and support plans. The management team recognised this work was needed on an ongoing basis to ensure people’s rights were protected in their best interests.

For one person, whose care file we reviewed, we found MCA assessments had been completed. These were in regards to sharing information with others, having a mat next to their bed, checks at night and medicines.

People were empowered to make their own decisions about their care and support.

Staff knew people’s capacity to make decisions through verbal or non-verbal means.

Staff had received training on the MCA for them to feel confident when assessing mental capacity. This supported decision-making and best interest decision-making in line with best practice.