Shottermill House

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. People’s relatives told us they were happy with how their care was assessed and reviewed. The registered manager ensured people’s care needs and individual needs were assessed before they moved into the home and care plans were in place for staff to follow. The management team supported people in any social care reviews and when contacting healthcare professionals to ensure people received appropriate care meeting their needs. People’s records confirmed this.

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 and their relatives told us they received person-centred care meeting their health and wellbeing needs. Staff were knowledgeable about good practice in care in relation to people’s health needs, support with mobility, nutrition and hydration. The provider ensured their systems and processes were in line with national best practice, for example, around providing care to people with physical disabilities, living with dementia or mental health support needs. People’s records clearly explained what support they required around their oral health and care.

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. A relative said, “[Staff] are respectful. There is good communication.”, and they explained all staff including care staff, senior staff and management were visibly involved in people’s care and cooperated well. A healthcare professional working with the service commented, “[Staff] communicate well with our team putting their residents at the heart of discussions and decisions. Staff ensure that the treatment regimes and plans are followed through.” People’s care records included information on referrals to other social care and healthcare professionals, their advice and any outcomes of regular health appointments people were supported to attend.

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 and their relatives told us they were supported to access various healthcare services as and when needed. One person said, “We are well looked after here. If we need a doctor, he comes, straight away too.” A relatives said, “[Person] is supported to see a whole team of people: doctors, nurses, the dentist. It’s all taken care of.” People’s care records included information on healthcare people were supported to access, for example: GP visits, mental health team, dental appointments, chiropody, optician, community nursing services. Senior staff overseeing the day-to-day care provided to people told us they had a good relationship with the healthcare professionals and felt they were supported well.

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. People’s relatives told us care provided in the home had a positive impact on their loved ones’ wellbeing and health. A relative gave an example, “[Person] can engage with people, and I would say, physically she is stronger than previously.” Another relative told us, “[Person] seems to be much more like her old self, she used to enjoy puzzles and crafts at home, and she is encouraged to join in with those things here. She very much enjoys chatting and so likes to be with all the other residents in the lounge.” People’s care records included evidence of how people’s safety and wellbeing were monitored daily, for example, to ensure their skin integrity, continence, personal care or nutritional needs were adequately met.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People and their relatives told us staff encouraged and supported people to make their own choices and asked for their consent prior to providing care and support. We saw people were offered choices and supported to express their wishes. Staff had a good understanding of mental capacity and how to support people to be involved and in control of their own care. Staff told us they would always act in people’s best interests, giving them freedom to choose and assisting in decision making. A staff member said, “It is important to treat people with dignity. To give them choices and privacy.” People’s care plans included robust information on how to support them to make their own decisions in most effective way, for example, by communicating with people in a way and at times when they were most likely to be able to focus, understand and weigh the information provided. The registered manager ensured appropriate mental capacity assessments, best interests decision records and applications for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations were completed and submitted with the local authority as required. People’s representatives and advocates were involved in decision making.