Garden Hill Care Centre

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 did not always ensure people’s care and treatment were effective, as people’s health, care,wellbeing and communication needs were not always assessed or reviewed consistently.

Information in care plans was not always accurate or consistent and, in some cases,contradicted associated risk assessments. Examples included unclear guidance about when one or two staff were required to support mobility and transfers, people being described as independent despite risk assessments identifying they needed support, prompting or monitoring, and conflicting information about falls, pressure care, continence,nutrition and capacity.

The provider’s own audits identified that care plans were not being reviewed frequently enough. This meant changes in people’s needs or risks were not reflected in their care records and did not provide up to date information for staff.

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 and treatment were delivered in line with current best practice and supported by nationally recognised tools, for example malnutrition and skin integrity. We saw evidence of appropriate referrals to other professionals when required. Relatives told us staff knew their loved ones well and supported them in ways that reflected their preferences. Care plans reflected evidence-based approaches, including nutrition and hydration and mental capacity assessments. Staff worked closely with healthcare professionals such as GP’s, occupational therapists and community nurses.

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.

Care plans included information about people's medical conditions and health professionals involved in their care. Staff referred people to professionals for advice and treatment as needed. Members of staff participated in daily meetings called ‘huddles’ where updates about people’s care and support needs were discussed. Handover meetings between day shift and night shift staff took place to ensure continuity of care and support.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence,choiceand control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People were supported to take part in a range of activities, including exercise sessions led by the activities co-ordinator. Referrals to health professionals were made appropriately,and people’s health needs were reviewed by a GP who visited the care home. Systems were in place to monitor people’s health, including nutrition, hydration and clinical risks. Records showed people were offered well-balanced meals.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people.

Systems to monitor outcomes, including audits and reviews, had not consistently identified or taken action to address issues found. For example, care plans were not always accurate or consistent with risk assessments, some care plans were overdue for review, and care plan audits were not being completed in line with the provider’s own processes.This meant the provider could not be assured that people’s needs and risks were consistently reviewed, monitored or effectively managed.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People had specific care plans detailing the support they needed with decision making. MCA and best interest decisions, where people lacked capacity to consent to restrictions, had been carried out.