Highmarket House

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 service had effective processes in place to assess people’s physical, emotional, and social care needs before they moved into the home. These assessments were thorough and person-centred, ensuring that the service could meet the individual’s needs and preferences safely and effectively. One relative told us “I have been involved in his care plan which we review and change from time to time, he smokes, and they always facilitate him to smoke, we have no issues at all”.

Assessments were carried out by trained senior staff, or the registered manager and involved the individual and their family members (where appropriate). A ‘Resident of the Day’ process is in place which ensures people’s care needs and preferences are reviewed monthly.

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.

People’s needs were assessed with them and relevant people. The staff used nationally recognised tools to assess risks to people. For instance, risk of choking and malnutrition were assessed. People who had experienced choking or swallowing difficulties had been referred to external healthcare professionals, and the staff understood about supporting people with modified diets. We noted kitchen staff ensured modified food was presented in a dignified and eye pleasing manner.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. Information was shared within the home to make sure people’s needs were met.

Changes to people’s circumstances and ways to improve care were discussed in handovers which occurred at each shift change. Feedback from healthcare professionals showed the home communicated with them in a timely manner and staff were able to provide clear and accurate information when required. Visiting professionals confirmed staff followed up on any actions that they had asked them to take. The provider sought feedback from professionals and a survey had been completed by the provider to obtain their views. Staff meetings took place at regular intervals to share information such as to remind staff of the training which they need to complete and to remind staff the one someone is discharged from hospital and returns to the home that their care plan need to be reviewed and updated of there have been any changes.

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.

Some relatives told us their families members’ health had improved since they had moved into the home. One relative told us their family member “didn’t eat much when she was in hospital, but she is much better nourished at the home, previously she had refused to eat and drink.”

People told us they had the opportunity to join exercise sessions to maintain their level of mobility and health, for example we observed a well-attended seated exercise class taking place and a seated cycling session was also part of the activities schedule.

People were encouraged to maintain good hydration and food intake. People who required modified diets were provided with them. Most people were very positive about menu variety and quality of the food.

There were records of when people had received visits from healthcare professionals, such as the GP, and the outcomes of these. The records also showed staff had contacted other agencies for advice and to pass on concerns whenever these arose. Staff received training on specific conditions including dementia awareness and supporting people with a learning disability or autistic people.

The provider 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.

The provider and registered manager had systems in place to support people. There was emphasis on continuously monitoring people’s care to ensure better outcomes.

The provider had staff who were subject champions in oral health, fall prevention and wound management this enabled the staff to be upskilled and for knowledge on these subjects to be shared. One relative told us how their relative’s condition had improved since they came to the home “[person] was in a poor way, but she is more mobile than when she arrived, she likes the food, and they are encouraging her to go to activities.”

People were encouraged and supported to maintain a role in society and continue with activities of their choice. For example, a person told us there had been day trips to a cat café, Stratford, Birmingham and Dudley and that the hobby room at the home was always busy. Another person told us how the home had supported their wish to go swimming.

People were in involved in community partnership events, an example being Care UK’s Generations of Change Initiative where a group of people went litter picking with local children and then had a picnic together to celebrate Global Recycling Day.

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

People and their relatives told us they were involved in decisions about their care. One relative told us “My brother and I were fully involved when it was suggested that mum would be better cared for by moving room to the first floor, the move has gone well, I think it is better for her there.” Another relative said, “I think most of the staff at the home respect people’s identities if they can.”

Care plans were reviewed regularly to ensure any gaps relating to people’s ability to consent to care was identified and rectified. Where people lacked mental capacity, a record was kept of who held Power of Attorney (PoA) and what for.

Best interest decisions were recorded at the service. Some improvement was needed to ensure it was consistently clear how the decision about the person’s best interests was reached, what the reasons for reaching the decision were, who was consulted to help work out best interests and what factors were taken into account.

People’s wishes regarding resuscitation were recorded, although details on one form completed by a GP lacked information, the provider said that they would contact the GP regarding this.