Whittle Hall House Care Residence

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. For example, an initial assessment of people’s needs was completed prior to their admission to the home. A care plan setting out people’s needs and how they were to be met was developed and kept under review. Care plans viewed showed regular monthly reviews had taken place and information was updated where required. Staff told us they were kept up to date with people’s current and changing needs through their care plans and daily handover meetings.

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. For example, the provider used recognised assessment tools to help evaluate people’s care needs.Tools used included malnutrition universal screening tool (MUST) to assess people at risk of malnutrition and dehydration and the waterlow score to assess people at risk of developing pressure ulcers. Staff used their learning from training and followed guidance set out in assessment tools to help identify whether people needed care and support from external professionals.

People’s nutritional and hydration needs were detailed in their care plans and staff were knowledgeable about them. Kitchen staff held information to enable them to prepare the right food and drinks for people. We ate with people in the dining room and observed a positive mealtime experience. People were offered a choice of food and drink. Staff used a combination of methods to help people make their choices, such as explaining the options and presenting them to the person. People told us they enjoyed the food and got plenty to eat. Their comments included, “Enjoy the food, I eat in the dining room” and “Always lovely.”

The provider worked across teams and services to support people. For example, staff worked with other agencies to make sure people received the care and treatment they needed. People were supported to attend health and wellbeing appointments, and a record was maintained of their attendance and outcomes. People’s care plans were updated following appointments to include any changes, advice or guidance provided. A family member told us, “They are aware of any changes and contact doctor when needed.” A member of staff told us they had good working relationships with other professionals and would never hesitate to contact a service for advice and guidance. Timely referrals were made to other services for people when needed including referrals to mental health teams, dieticians and specialist nursing teams.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could maximise their independence, choice and control. For example, menus were made up of a variety of healthy food options. Staff spend time in communal areas engaging with people and supporting their emotional well-being. The provider employed staff to help facilitate and deliver a range of activities for people including sensory and therapeutic sessions.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure outcomes were positive and consistent, and met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. For example, records used to monitor aspects of people’s care where there was a known risk were not always completed to show the care given. This included positional change records for some people at risk of skin breakdown and food and fluid records for some people at risk of malnutrition and dehydration. We found no impact on people, however there was a risk people had not received the care they needed. Information for 1 person about the type of diabetes they had was unclear as type 1 and type 2 were recorded in different sections of the persons care plan. The type of hoist and sling size for another person was not recorded in their care plan. Both care plans were updated after we raised this with the manager.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. For example, the provider worked in line with principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 to ensure decisions were made for people assessed as lacking the capacity to make their own decisions. Relevant others such as family members and other professionals were involved in making decisions in the person’s best interests. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were monitored to ensure they were in date and remained relevant. We observed staff asking people for their consent before providing any care and support.