Bentley Lodge 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 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.

The clinical lead or nurses completed people’s initial assessment. A nurse said, “If we don’t do this properly, then we will not know how to manage a person’s needs.” A nurse also told us, “People’s needs can change when they come here and this is written in their care plan. It is very important that we do our own assessment e.g. body map any skin issues so that we can immediately manage this.” A health care professional told us the provider admitted people to the service appropriately.

People’s care plans demonstrated who had been involved in the assessment of their needs and evidenced their physical, mental, cognitive and social needs had been assessed. People’s care plans were then reviewed monthly through the provider’s ‘Resident of the Day’ process to ensure they were up to date. They were also reviewed 6 monthly with the person’s family.

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.

Nurses used a range of nationally recognised tools to assess and monitor people’s care and clinical needs and to plan the delivery of their care. Staff reviewed the outcomes from these tools monthly and updated the care plan if people’s needs changed. Where people had specific health care needs, their care planning reflected national guidance, for example, in relation to diabetes care or wound care. We saw there was written guidance for care staff about the signs and symptoms which might indicate a person was becoming unwell and to escalate their observations to the nurses.

Staff referred people to the speech and language therapy service if they were identified as at risk from choking. People’s care plans detailed if they required a modified diet, this information was then shared with the chef and staff we spoke with were familiar with people’s needs in this area. We observed people were provided with the correct foods for their needs. People’s weight was monitored at least monthly and where people were at risk of weight loss or dehydration relevant measures were in place. People were provided with a choice of home cooked meals daily.

However, we noted a person in their room who required staff support to eat, was not supported promptly whilst their meal was hot. The registered manager was aware of this issue and had purchased an additional hot trolley, so staff could keep people’s meal hot until they were ready to serve and provide support to those who required assistance. We also saw this issue had been identified on the service improvement plan and work was planned to review the delegation of staff’s work at lunchtime.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people.

Staff worked effectively with health and social care professionals and teams to plan and deliver people’s care. The provider worked with a range of statutory agencies and was commissioned to provide some people’s care in discharge to assess beds, which enabled further assessment of the person’s care and treatment needs, when they no longer need an in-patient hospital bed. Professionals told us staff worked well with them.

Nurses felt the new clinical lead had made improvements, which meant the nursing team were working more effectively together. Their feedback included, “The clinical lead has really improved things since she came here, she initiated systems which are good and make our working life more straightforward so now everything is moving well.” A new nursing station had been established upstairs which enabled the nurse responsible for the upper floor to be based there.

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’s care plans identified and addressed their healthcare needs, including oral health care.

We observed people could be booked into see the GP at their weekly clinic for review where clinically required. Staff referred people to physiotherapy, dentists, opticians and audiologists as needed. A person commented, “An optician wandered in and gave me the full examination.” Staff arranged for people to be supported to attend healthcare appointments, such as at hospitals as required.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it.

People’s care plans set out the goals and objectives for the provision of their care. Nurses met weekly at the clinical risk meeting to discuss people’s clinical care, identified risks and outcomes.

Staff used tools such as RESTORE2, which is used to enable staff to establish people’s ‘normal’ observations, to monitor them monthly and to promptly identify if a person starts to become unwell. This helped to ensure people’s changing needs were identified and escalated to the appropriate professionals.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

People’s care plans detailed their capacity to consent or make decisions about their care, and any support they needed to make decisions. Where people lacked the capacity to consent to their care, staff had completed a Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 assessment and made a best interest decision involving relevant others, to ensure the person’s views and wishes were considered and decisions were made in their best interests. Where people had appointed a power of attorney, records had been checked to confirm which decisions they were authorised to make on the person’s behalf. People had advocates where required to represent their interests, whom they had regular contact with and were fully involved in decisions about their care.

Staff had completed MCA training and understood its application to their role. Staff understood people had the right to be involved in any decisions about their care which they could, or to make unwise decisions.