Frindsbury Hall 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 the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes.
 

This service scored 63 (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 assessed and reviewed in a way that consistently supported up-to-date and accessible care delivery.

People’s needs were assessed using a range of recognised tools, and records showed that key areas such as mobility, nutrition, continence and skin integrity had been identified. Assessments were completed on admission and reviewed regularly. However, reviews did not always demonstrate how changes in people’s needs were clearly identified, analysed and reflected in care delivery. In many cases, review entries were brief and recorded limited detail, often indicating that there were “no changes” or repeating existing information without clear evidence of evaluation. For example, records relating to behaviour and cognition frequently described the person as “confused at times” or displaying challenging behaviour, but did not clearly show how this had been explored, reviewed or updated over time to reflect current needs or risks. While monitoring tools and assessments were completed, it was not always clear how information from these reviews informed changes to care. In addition, information about people’s needs was spread across multiple assessments and records. This meant staff were required to access and interpret information from different sources rather than being able to rely on a clear and up-to-date summary of needs.

This reduced assurance that people’s needs were consistently reviewed and translated into accessible, current information to support safe and effective care, particularly for new or unfamiliar staff.

The provider did not always ensure care and treatment were consistently delivered in line with evidence-based guidance. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s needs and were able to describe how they supported individuals in practice. Monitoring tools and clinical assessments, such as nutritional, hydration and skin integrity assessments, were in place.

However, this information was not always clearly translated into structured and accessible guidance to support consistent care delivery. Care records did not always provide clear instructions for staff on how to respond to identified risks, or how care should be delivered in line with best practice. For example, while assessments identified risks such as dehydration or changes in physical health, care records did not always clearly describe what actions staff should take, when to escalate concerns or how frequently monitoring should be reviewed. Similarly, information relating to behaviour or cognitive impairment was recorded across different assessments but did not always translate into clear, person-specific guidance for staff to follow. In addition, information was often spread across multiple records and tools. This made it difficult to identify a clear, up-to-date overview of people’s needs and the care required, particularly for staff who were unfamiliar with the person. This meant that although care was often delivered appropriately in practice, this relied on staff knowledge and experience rather than clear, evidence-based systems. As a result, the provider could not demonstrate that care was consistently delivered in line with best practice across the service.
 

Staff worked well together to support people and provide coordinated care across the service. Each floor had a consistent staff team, which supported continuity and meant people and visitors knew who to approach for assistance. Staff spoke positively about teamwork and described supporting each other during busy periods. Observations during the inspection showed staff communicating effectively and working collaboratively to meet people’s needs. People and their relatives also spoke positively about the service, describing staff as responsive and available when needed. Staff explained how they shared information through handovers and throughout the day. This helped ensure that changes in people’s needs were communicated and that care was delivered in a coordinated way. Staff were also able to describe people’s needs and how they worked together to provide support, which showed good day-to-day communication. The service also worked with external healthcare professionals when people’s needs changed. Referrals were made to relevant services, such as GPs and other health professionals, and people were supported to access care when required. This helped ensure people received appropriate care in a timely way.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maintain their independence and respond to changes in need. People and relatives told us staff responded appropriately when health concerns arose and sought medical support when required. Records showed referrals had been made to external healthcare professionals. Staff recognised signs of deterioration and acted appropriately, and people were supported to access healthcare services in a timely way. Relatives confirmed they were kept informed about changes in people’s health, and staff were able to describe how they supported people to maintain their health and wellbeing. While systems to monitor health risks were not always consistently applied, staff were generally able to recognise concerns and seek appropriate support when needed. Overall, people received timely and appropriate healthcare support.

The provider did not always effectively monitor people’s care and treatment to improve outcomes.
Monitoring processes were in place; however, they were not always used to inform care or drive improvements. For example, concerns regarding people’s nutritional intake were identified, and referrals were made to dieticians. However, monitoring was not consistently maintained while awaiting professional input.
For example, records showed weights being taken, but there was not always clear evidence of follow-up action where changes occurred or of this information being reflected in updated care plans.
This meant the provider could not demonstrate that monitoring information was consistently used to assess risk or improve outcomes. This reduced assurance that changes in people’s health were always identified and responded to appropriately.
 

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.
People were supported to make decisions about their care, and staff demonstrated an understanding of the importance of consent.
Mental Capacity Act processes were in place, and where people lacked capacity, decisions had been made in their best interests. However, some inconsistencies in recording were identified, although these did not impact on the delivery of care. There was no evidence people received care without their consent.