Marigold Nursing 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 58 (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 make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. People’s needs had been assessed when they were admitted into the home.However, the Initial assessment was brief and did not provide sufficient detail about people’s needs and preferences.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. People did not have a pleasant lunchtime experience due to a lack of organisation. The dining room wasn’t prepared for people to have their lunch, as staff did not have access to everything they needed. People had already started eating whilst staff were still setting tables and people were provided with dignity aprons to keep their clothes clean after they had started eating. People did not have the specialist crockery and cutlery to hand, so were given their meal with plates and cutlery that didn’t meet their needs. In one case a relative had to prompt staff about this. The dining room was overcrowded, and people were regularly disturbed whilst eating their meal to allow people and staff to get past them.

Care records were not always accurate or fully completed to confirm the care staff had given, such as oral health care records.

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. Relatives and staff told us there was good teamwork within the home which was preventing standards from deteriorating any further.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Areas of the home intended to promote people’s wellbeing, such as the sensory room and multi-faith room, were not available to them as they were being used as storage. The sensory room had been used as storage since December 2024. The provider cleared the multi-faith room during our inspection. However, the sensory room remained out of use.

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. Staff did not always act to ensure people received care when they needed it. For example, one person needed to be seen by an external professional for over 3 weeks but had not been referred. Although the provider acted to resolve this, it had not been done proactively when first required.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People were usually asked to give their consent before receiving personal care. They had also signed their care plans to show they had agreed to their planned care.