Saffrons 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,treatmentand support achieved good outcomes and promoteda good qualityof life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key questionGood. At thisassessmentthe rating has changed toRequiresImprovement.

This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 58 (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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People and their relatives had not been involved in planning or reviewing their care once living at the service. One person told us, “I don’t know what a care plan is and I haven't seen one. I haven't been involved in writing one with staff.” Care plans were not updated or regularly reviewed, and people’s needs and information was not consistently recorded.

Staff understood people’s day-to-day needs and routines well, which mitigated risk to wellbeing. Where people required specialist care, for example, those living with diabetes, there was evidence of robust guidance to support safe care.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered. People’s nutrition and hydration needs were not always being met.

People told us that the menu was poorly devised, and there was a lack of variety. We observed large quantities of food being left and people told us that they were dissatisfaction with the choice offered. A relative told us, “There has been issues with the food. [name] can't eat rich or creamy foods, because of this her options are sometimes limited, especially for puddings. A few times [name] has had an egg for breakfast and then egg salad has been on offer for lunch. Also, they often have jacket potatoes on the menu and there isn't much choice.”

Staff were aware of people’s specific dietary needs, but these were not always well catered for. One person told us, “I don’t like the food, at times its rubbish. There isn’t much choice for a diabetic diet. Because of this this I will often go to the shop to buy food instead.”Following the inspection the registered manager advised they were reviewing the food options with people.

However, staff had received nutrition and hydration training. Hot drinks, biscuits, and cakes were frequently offered to people. Fresh fruit and water were readily available for people to help themselves to throughout the day which promoted their independence.

The provider 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.

People's health and social needs were assessed before coming to live at Saffrons Care Home. The registered manager was aware of the services limitation and considered the dynamics and impact on people when agreeing new admissions.

The staff team worked a consistent shift pattern. Many had worked at the service for several years. Staff told us that the registered manager was approachable, they felt well supported and that they could confidently report concerns. Staff were aware of the relevant referral pathways and contact details for specialist teams such as mental health and were in regular communications.

Staff, resident and family meetings were held, with the minutes being shared with those that were unable to attend at the time ensuring clear communication. The provider worked with people, their relatives and visiting professionals including GP, community nurses and paramedic practitioners to support a holistic approach to care.

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 were promoted to remain active and mobile. Weekly activities sessions included a chair exercise class which was facilitated by an outside organisation. We observed people being engaged and enjoying the session.

People had access to healthcare when needed including GP, podiatry, tissue viability services, ophthalmology and hairdressing. One relative told us, “Saffrons are very good at organising other services to visit such as the chiropodist and hairdresser, they are always on time and never cancel. This is important to [name].”

Staff supported people to maintain their own health needs where appropriate. People were encouraged to independently attend health appointments in the community if safe and physically able to. One person’s choice was to manage their own diabetic condition with the use of an electronic glucose monitoring aid. Changes in people’s needs were communicated to staff verbally at handover. Staff received training in oral hygiene, diabetes and dementia awareness.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Records did not always evidence action taken to improve outcomes. For example, when support was needed for a person’s nutritional needs, the contact with the GP had not been recorded. However, the provider had processes in place to monitor people’s needs, these included Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool for people identified as being at risk of weight loss and Waterlow for people at risk of pressure damage. People’s weights were monitored monthly, oversight and analysis was provided by the registered manager.

One relative told us, “Staff treat [name] fine, they had a small operation to have a pacemaker fitted, 4 days after the op they was discharged back into the care of Saffrons. Staff take their time when caring for [name]. They are very kind and helpful. They are encouraging them to mobilise independently again which is important.”

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent. People and their advocates had not been involved in making decisions about what they did or did not consent to.

Some people who had been determined to lack mental capacity for specific decisions had an appointed lasting power of attorney in place to support best interest decision-making. However, their involvement in discussing consent had not been clearly recorded.

Formal consent for care and treatment including information sharing had not always been recorded to reflect individual wishes and preferences. For example, people’s photos had been used for their care plans but consent for pictures to be taken was not evident. However, we observed staff asking for people’s consent when providing daily care.