The Laurels 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 71 (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.

The provider assessed people’s support needs as part of the preadmission process to ensure they could be met by the service. People had care plans setting out care and the support they required, which were regularly reviewed.

A staff member told us, ‘Actions are always taken when needed in response to resident changes.’

People told us that the staff knew them well. One person told us, ‘The staff know what I like.’

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.

Staff completed a range of training, including 10 staff members currently working to gain diplomas in health and social care, varying from level 2 to level 5. A staff member told us, “We are always offered additional training. I have just started NVQ 3.”

Staff demonstrated a good understanding in relation to people’s specific needs. Staff described people’s modified diets and how they support people at mealtimes to reduce the risk of choking.

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. We saw evidence that people were supported to access a variety of healthcare services to meet their needs.

Relatives told us that people are supported with accessing their GP and attending hospital appointments. A relative told us,”[person] is going in for an operation, and the home has been wonderful in organising all of that.”

During our assessment we observed staff interacting positively with visiting professionals.

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 said that they were supported by staff. One person told us, ‘Staff do a phenomenal job at looking after us.”

A staff member said that they support people and encourage people to live life how they want.

The service had menus available which provided a wide-ranging choice and a varied nutritious diet.

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 themselves.

During our assessment we identified that a person who was on daily fluid monitoring with a daily target had not reach their target during several days. Their care plan did not advise what actions should be taken if the person did not meet their daily fluid target.

When we informed the registered manager, they addressed this issue promptly and reviewed all people on fluid monitoring.

We saw peoples care plans were reviewed and updated when people’s care needs changed and following advice from healthcare professionals.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Where a person did not have capacity to make their own decision, or had fluctuating capacity, the provider had completed mental capacity assessments. This meant the service had acted in line with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) code of practice.

Staff had received training in MCA and understood what consent means. Staff members we spoke with showed a good understanding of consent to care and treatment. We observed staff seeking consent before supporting people’s needs.