St Martins Residential 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 requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good.This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.
 

This service scored 67 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People’s needs were assessed prior to their admission to St Martins Residential Home, by the registered manager, and included consideration of their physical, mental health, social and communication needs. When appropriate, families, carers, advocates, professionals and other stakeholders were involved in the assessment of people’s needs and reviews. The registered manager encouraged prospective people and their relatives to visit St Martins Residential Care Home to ensure they felt the service was suitable to meet their needs.

At our last assessment, we had identified concerns around people’s mealtimes. During this visit, it was clear the provider had taken steps to address the previous concerns and improvements around mealtimes were evident.

People received kind, person‑centred mealtime support, with staff offering choices and ensuring individuals enjoyed their food and stayed well‑hydrated. We carried out observations during mealtimes. We observed one person being supported to eat their meal by a member of staff. The staff member was patient and kind whilst ensuring the person received the support they needed to enjoy their meal. People were supported to eat their meals in a way that suited them. For example, staff encouraged people to choose where they preferred to sit and offered a range of condiments. Feedback about the food was mostly positive, one person told us, “The food is excellent, I can’t fault it. I get enough fruit and veg. If you don’t like the 2 options you can ask for something else and they suggest what is in the fridge like sausages or lasagne, it is a very good home I cannot find any problems.” We observed people being offered a choice of drinks to meet their hydration needs throughout our visit.

The service used the Waterlow assessment tool to assess and identify people at risk of developing pressure ulcers. These had been reviewed regularly, however, did not always contain the most up to date information about people, which could impact the score and level of risk identified. Staff had a good understanding of people’s specific dietary needs and provided support that reflected their needs. Care plans detailed prescribed modified diets and adhered to the International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative (IDDSI) framework, a global standard for describing food textures and drink thicknesses for people with swallowing difficulties. We reviewed a choking risk assessment that identified symptoms to monitor and preventative actions to take, such as a referral to Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) service. However, it did not include immediate actions staff should take in the event of the person choking. Although a senior carer was able to describe an appropriate response, and all care staff had received dysphagia and first aid training, the absence of this guidance could leave staff without clear consistent direction in an emergency placing people at risk of choking. After the assessment the service assured us care records would be updated with staff guidance to support the person, safely reducing the risks of choking.
 

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. The service worked together with people to effectively deliver coordinated, person-centred care, support, and treatment. People’s relatives told us they were kept up to date about ongoing health and care arrangements. One relative told us, “The communication is pretty good, I get phone calls if there are any changes.”

Staff worked proactively with other services when multidisciplinary input was needed. A health professional told us, “Management have a good rapport, they are very quick to phone me, I trust them, communication is very good.”
 

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

Staff responded to changes in people’s acute care needs by contacting medical services such as the GP, district nurses, psychiatrists, the Speech and Language Therapy service and the dementia care nurse. The service made referrals to appropriate health services when people’s needs changed. A health professional confirmed communication was good from the service and said the service completed referrals in a timely way when required.
 

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. Staff knew how to monitor peoples care and needs, however, clear guidance was not always provided of what to do if people were not reaching their individual targets. For example; if a person was at risk of dehydration and it had been identified they needed support to drink, staff had not been provided with guidance on what to do if this target was not met.

Where people had specific healthcare needs or conditions, the service helped people to access support from the relevant external healthcare professional. When specialist input was required, staff had completed the relevant referrals.
 

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. The service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty (DOLS). Where people lacked capacity, mental capacity assessments had been completed, and decisions were made in their best interests with input from professionals and family members. Assessments and decisions around consent were appropriately recorded. People were supported to access independent advocacy, and advocates were appropriately involved by the service. One person using the service told us, “You are never rushed to do things, and staff are very respectful. They [staff] get consent before they do anything, with medicines they say is it alright to give you this? Sometimes I ask what it is, they say exactly what it is.”