Finborough Court

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 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.

Before people moved to Finborough Court, the leadership team completed clear, detailed pre‑admission assessments to enable a gradual admission process supporting people through the transition. Information obtained was used as the basis of a care plan that recorded people’s individual needs and preferences alongside identified risks and how these were to be safely managed.

People and relatives told us they had been involved in planning care which ensured assessments captured people’s interests, histories and cultural needs; staff used these to build care and activity plans. One relative said, “On [family member’s] first day, a member of staff sat down and prayed with them. This was really important to them spiritually.”

The registered manager shared the challenges of the electronic care planning system which meant some prepopulated text was not always person-centred, using language that consistently valued people and information being captured was often task orientated. To address this staff were completing additional information sections to record person-centred details including interactions and incidental communication with people, but they acknowledged this was a work in progress as some staff were more confident than others in record keeping, so further support and training was planned to support staff with this.

Staff were knowledgeable in how to support people and understood individual communication needs. Records showed people’s health was reviewed routinely, and timely referrals were made when needed.

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’s care records reflected a comprehensive use of industry recognised assessment tools and professional advice to guide risk assessments and care planning. Where risks to people were identified, the service took appropriate steps to mitigate these. These evidenced‑based tools helped staff identify risk levels, track changes and adapt to care needs appropriately.

There were effective systems in place to ensure staff knew about individual eating and drinking guidelines and recommendations in relation to food and drink. Staff received training in fluids, nutrition, and dysphagia and acted quickly when people were at risk of malnutrition. One professional told us the staff actively, “Encourage and promote good nutritional intake and act on advice given to prevent further weight loss in those at risk by implementing [food fortification] in homemade shakes and meals.”

Peoples care records where required reflected input from a range of healthcare professionals including speech and language therapists, tissue viability nurses, dieticians and mental health teams to support current evidence based best practice.

The registered manager kept staff up to date regarding current clinical guidance and staff were provided with ongoing learning opportunities to continue to improve outcomes for people.

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.

Management and the staff team worked collaboratively with other professionals such as district nurses, GPs, social workers, mental health practitioners and therapy teams to ensure people received well-co-ordinated care which met their individual needs.

Where people moved between services, the management team liaised with relevant professionals and health commissioners to ensure changes were documented and transitions were as smooth as possible. This meant people did not have to repeat their history each time a new professional became involved in their care.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing, promoting independence, choice and control while helping reduce future care needs.

Feedback showed staff understood people’s medical conditions and daily support needs. People and relatives described them as knowledgeable, attentive and skilled. One relative said, “Senior care staff have been diligent in assessing needs, working with [family member] and the GP to ensure the right medications are given. They have shared concerns and worked hard to find solutions.”

People were supported to access healthcare when needed. Records and feedback confirmed access to GPs, dentists, physiotherapists and other specialists. One person said, “The doctor came to see me… been to hospital—it is all arranged for me.” A relative added, “Appointments are always managed efficiently.”

We received very positive comments about the nutritious food and choice available. Mealtimes were a social and enjoyable experience. Staff were patient, discreet and reassuring. Meals were well presented, with options to support choice, including for people living with dementia.

One person said, “The food is very good… I feel comfortable, I am not rushed.” Another said, “The food is excellent… I enjoy the soups and homemade cakes. The chef is lovely.”

People choosing to eat in their rooms received the same attentive support. Assistance was provided at their pace without interruption. One person told us, “Staff are gentle and assist me when I need it. I never feel rushed.”

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. A relative told us, “I would absolutely recommend this home. The facilities are perfect for [family member’s] needs, from the food to the care to meeting spiritual needs. I do not know what I would do without the place!”

Management monitored the effectiveness of the care people received and took appropriate action to improve people’s quality of life where needed. The approach and coordinated team response from staff and the senior team ensured people received the best possible outcomes. Regular care plan reviews in collaboration with people and their relatives enabled the staff team to have effective oversight of the health and social care needs of people in their care and supported them to maintain people’s independence around decision making.

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

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making specific decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA 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 make decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Staff received training in the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and understood the importance of people’s consent. Staff told us they always sought permission from the person before supporting them with personal care tasks. We observed staff providing information in ways people could understand and allowed time for decision-making. People told us staff sought their consent. One person said, “I am well looked after here. I am content and safe, the home makes me feel safe. It is a happy place. Lovely atmosphere. If I want anything I just ask. Carers help me with bathing, have had several showers, I ask for them when I want them, always prefer a female carer to help me and that is never a problem. Carers always ask me first before they do anything check I am happy to go ahead.”

People had mental capacity assessments, DOLS applications and authorisations, and best interest decisions in place for all necessary decisions. Where people lacked capacity, care plans typically recorded who should be consulted in their best interests.