Acer Court 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 changed to requires improvement.

This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 54 (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 needs were fully assessed and documented to support the delivery of consistently safe and effective care. Whilst people had care plans in place that were reviewed regularly, some records lacked sufficient detail.

We found some care plans lacked detailed guidance regarding the management of specific health conditions, including Parkinson's disease, and how these conditions impacted people individually. This meant staff did not always have access to clear, person-centred information about people's assessed needs, creating a risk that care may not be delivered consistently or in accordance with people's individual requirements.

Most care plans provided staff with guidance on how to support people and included personalised information about people's life histories, preferences, hobbies, and interests. This helped staff understand people as individuals and deliver care that reflected what mattered to them.

People and those important to them were generally involved in care planning and review processes. Relatives told us they were consulted about care and any changes required. One relative said, “We have a review once or twice a year and ask us of any changes we want to make.” However, people living at the service were not always aware of their care plans, which limited their involvement in decisions about their care and support.

The provider did not always ensure people's care and treatment were planned and delivered in line with their individual needs and current clinical guidance. Whilst people received support with their care, some aspects of care planning lacked sufficient detail to enable staff to consistently provide safe and effective care.

We found some areas of people's care were not well planned, and it was not always clear how specific health conditions should be managed safely in accordance with clinical advice. In some cases, care records did not provide staff with clear guidance on how to respond to changes in people's needs or when concerns should be escalated. This increased the risk of delays in identifying deterioration, seeking appropriate support and providing timely treatment, which could place people at risk of harm.

Risks associated with people's dietary needs were not always effectively managed. During the assessment, we observed discarded food left unattended in a dining area. We also observed people walking purposefully around the home and, on one occasion, a person attempted to eat the food before inspectors intervened. This presented a risk to people who required specialist diets, such as soft or modified-texture diets, or those with health conditions such as diabetes, where consuming inappropriate food could have a negative impact on their health and wellbeing.

The provider did not always ensure effective communication and collaborative working across staff teams to support the delivery of safe, consistent care. Whilst there were examples of positive partnership working with external professionals, communication within the service was not always effective.

We received mixed feedback from staff about how well teams worked together. Several staff described divisions within the workforce which affected teamwork and the sharing of information. One staff member told us, “Not always. Messages in the diary may be missed and information is not always shared.” Another said, “There isn’t enough communication at all, things being missed or not being taken seriously.” These concerns indicated communication systems were not consistently effective and increased the risk of people receiving inconsistent or unsafe care.

The provider did not always demonstrate that assessments and important information about people's needs were shared effectively across the service. Where communication was poor, there was a risk that changes in people's needs, care requirements or risks may not be identified or responded to promptly.

There were some positive examples of information sharing. People's care plans included details about their lives before moving into the home, helping to ensure important personal information was retained and reducing the need for people to repeatedly share their history. External professionals also spoke positively about communication from the service. One professional told us, “[The care home staff] get in touch appropriately with enough information and with reasonable concerns.”

People were supported to manage their health and wellbeing and access the healthcare services they needed to maintain their independence, choice and quality of life. Staff worked proactively with people and relevant professionals to help them achieve positive health outcomes and reduce the risk of their needs increasing over time.

People had timely access to a range of healthcare professionals and specialist services. Staff recognised when people required additional support and sought advice from healthcare professionals as appropriate. Professionals regularly visited the service, and staff supported people to attend appointments and follow healthcare recommendations.

People spoke positively about the healthcare support available to them. They told us they were able to access a range of services, including GPs, nurses, chiropodists, opticians and hairdressers. Psychological support had also been accessed where appropriate to promote people's emotional wellbeing. One person told us, “The GP comes every Thursday if we need to cover anything. I've had [optician] come in to check my eyes and got new specs. The chiropodist comes to do our toes, and [partner] has [their] beard trimmed by the hairdresser.”

Staff understood the importance of promoting people's health and wellbeing and supported people to access the care and treatment they required. This helped people maintain their independence and ensured their physical, emotional and social wellbeing needs were met.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured they met clinical expectations however did not always meet the expectations of people themselves.

Feedback on the food provision was generally not enthusiastic, with most residents feeling that the quality had fallen recently. However, people told us they had options for their meals and enjoyed the social aspect of their dining experience. One person said, “I’m amply fed and there’s always options to the menu. I’m having cheese salad today or if the salad hasn’t arrived, a plain omelette. I’ve made new friends here and chat at lunch.” Another person told us, “The food isn’t great, with cooking for so many. The vegetables get over cooked. But if you don’t like the menu, they’ll do you a jacket potato, salad or omelette if not. We usually eat in the dining room.”

Most bedrooms we visited had a dated jug of water or squash provided. The tea trolley was well stocked and made rounds four times a day, including fortified milkshakes.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act 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 particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. We reviewed MCA assessments and found they did not include details on how they had determined if people did or did not have the capacity to make certain decisions about their care and support.

We observed staff seeking consent before supporting people with care. Consent was also sought at lunchtime with clothing protector fitting, and before removing plates. People told us staff asked for consent and adhered to people’s response. One person told us, “They’ll always ask me first before doing anything and communicate well.” Another person told us, “I must admit, I get asked but don’t have to agree to something if I’m not ready.”