St Anne's 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

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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 service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s needs were assessed before they started to use the service.People and relatives were involved in care planning. Records viewed at the time of the inspection confirmed care plans were reviewed on regular basis to ensure they were up to date.

Relatives confirmed they were involved in creating people’s care plans and could easily contact the service regarding any changes required.

The service used an electronic care planning system which meant all information and changes to care plans were readily available to staff.

The service 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.

Where possible people were involved in making decisions about their care. for example choosing what they would like to eat or where they would like to go. Staff supported people with their food and fluid needs. Records viewed during the inspection confirmed staff monitored people’s hydration needs when required. When people required specialist support with their nutrition needs, this was evidenced in their care plan and staff were appropriately trained.

The service 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.

Staff kept detailed records of care and support visits, which could be shared if necessary.The service used an electronic care planning system to ensure all information on people’s needs was stored centrally and could be easily updated and shared if necessary.

At the time of this inspection, people were not receiving input from external professionals.

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People were supported to maintain a healthy lifestyle. Information regarding people’s care and support needs were detailed and easy to follow.All information was stored on the electronic care planning system used by the service. People’s health needs were known, and plans were in place for each person to ensure changes to their health were recognised and acted upon if required.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Records viewed during the inspection showed the service monitored care and support provided to people to ensure this remained effective.

Care plans included individual outcomes, along with guidance on how to achieve them. The staff team communicated daily through the digital messaging platform. This supported continuous improvements to people’s care and treatment as feedback was ongoing.

The service did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

Where necessary, people with legal authority or responsibility can make decisions within the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The provider did not have an overview of who can lawfully act on a person’s behalf which meant that some relatives had provided consent on behalf of people and there was no evidence they had the legal right to make those decisions. The management responded to our feedback and obtained the necessary documentation from relatives. The process for assessing mental capacity was strengthened during the inspection.

Overall people’s rights were upheld and staff respected people’s decisions.Staff had received training and understood the principles of the MCA.Staff told us how they communicated with people and gained their consent. A staff member said, “We always offer choices and encourage people to make decisions about their daily life.”