Wollaton View 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 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 67 (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 partner agencies. However, the service was aware they required improvements to their communication and involvement with people and their relatives.

The management team worked towards a smooth transition for people, alongside the community health provider. This process was reviewed regularly by the directors and the leads within the external health team. We were assured they were working towards providing a consistent, safe approach.

The management and staff team felt that system pressures to accept admissions from the hospital setting, and some of these people presenting with more complex needs, had a potential impact on the overall safety and quality of the service. We discussed these challenges with the care coordinators, who explained the pressures placed upon the service to be responsive to supporting fluctuating numbers of people. We saw some information contained within peoples’ discharge documents, completed at hospital, contained inaccuracies regarding their levels of need. This left the management team with a challenge to robustly plan ahead for meeting people’s needs. The management team were in regular contact with the relevant teams, to look at improving this process.

Most people and their relatives were positive about their experiences. One relative told us, “They seem to know my family member well already and they are being allowed to do as much for themselves as they can. They look clean and tidy, so we have no concerns as yet.”

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.

Care records showed people and their relatives had been involved in planning their care and support needs. Detailed life histories were included within people’s care plans. Staff showed they understood people well. One person said, “They know my routine, and I’m fine with it all.” Another person said, “I have help to go to the toilet, so they use a stand-aid now and not the hoist like before. I’m happy enough with my care and staff will check if I’m ok with it all.” Another person said, “My relatives do all the plans, and are on the ball with the manager.”

The service implemented best practice guidance for the management of people’s specific identified needs. For example, clear guidance was in place for staff to follow, where people lived with diet and medication managed diabetes, their care plans were clear and robust. Information for staff on supporting an effective low sugar diet, daily checks needed, and what to do if a person became unwell were all clear. The kitchen team had a document which detailed people’s specific dietary needs and showed a clear understanding of these. Staff we spoke with showed they understood the need to ensure people were supported to maintain a healthy diet and fluid intake.

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.

Feedback we received from people indicated the service worked in partnership with external agencies. The care plans, risk assessments and activity planners for people had been regularly updated when a review had taken place. People were enabled to participate as active members of their community.

People and their relatives gave positive feedback about the way the service worked with external health and social care partners. One person said, “The doctor does a regular day each week and gets called in if anyone’s poorly. My own hairdresser comes in and does my hair in my room.” A relative told us, “The nurse came twice a day to see my family member when they were unwell, and the GP has them on antibiotics for an infection that was identified by the staff. My family member has had an optician here to do their sight check and the chiropodist visits about every 6 weeks. My family member also enjoys having their hair done fortnightly.”

Staff members we spoke with told us about the positive relationships they had with people and their external health and social care teams. One member of staff told us, “We have a good relationship with our GP practice, and the district nursing team. They are here most days, so we get to know them, and they get to know our residents.”

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 gave positive feedback about the support provided for them by staff. One person said, “I can use my frame for short spells with someone with me, or I use my wheelchair to go to the lounge or out and about. The carers are good at helping me.” Care plans and risk assessments were regularly reviewed by the management team, ensuring relevant information was in place for staff to follow. People gave positive feedback about their choices being respected and the activities which were offered for them. One person said, “It’s left up to me to decide my bedtimes, no one rushes you. I like to sit in the dining room for my meals and see people and have a chat. I’ll join in activities if I like what’s going on.”

The service notice board contained information of events and daily activities that all people could access. People were able to express their views of activities provision, and events they would like to be considered by the management team.

People’s communication needs were documented and understood by staff. This allowed staff to communicate with people, and to have a clear understanding of the person’s needs.

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.

Peoples care and support needs were being regularly monitored and reviewed by the management team. The service had improved their daily running records, to ensure they had robust oversight of any changes in people’s needs.

Referrals were made promptly to external teams to help mitigate risks effectively. For example, people who lived with a risk of falls had been referred to professionals for specialist input to help mitigate these risks. The service worked closely with a specialist team to support people living with dementia. Where referrals had been made, the guidance provided had been updated in people’s care plans.

People's individual needs were being met by the adaption, design and decoration of the premises. The service was well maintained, with wide, accessible corridors, good lighting and signage, which supported people living with dementia to orientate within the building.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always document where a person had a restriction imposed, prior to delivering care and treatment.

The Deprivation of Liberty Standards, (DoLS), tracker for the service had not been updated where people had a best interests assessment completed. The Mental Capacity Act, (MCA), gives others the legal right to take certain steps relevant to people’s care and treatment in their best interests; where a person lacks capacity to decide or consent for themselves. It was unclear if there were specific conditions imposed and if these had been adhered to by staff. This meant people were at risk of not always being supported in the least restrictive way. The management team submitted updated documentation during our assessment visit, we were assured by their response.

People told us they could plan their bedtimes, choose what to wear and how to spend their day. Menu and drinks choices were also offered. Likewise, people could choose whether to join in an activity. One person said, “I don’t sleep well so it’s up to me when I go to bed or want to get up. I just buzz when I’m ready. I like to choose what I wear so the staff will pick out things to show me. I tend to like to stay in my room but prefer to eat in the dining room.”

All of the staff we spoke with understood the importance of respecting people’s wishes and asking for consent prior to providing support or personal care. We observed staff knocking on people’s doors and waiting for a response prior to entering. People were addressed by their preferred names and pronouns by staff in a respectful manner. One person said, “Staff will always ask me if I’m ready to get up, do something or to go somewhere.” Another person said, “They’re polite and will always check with me before doing anything.”