Auden House 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 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 ensured people’s care and treatment were effective by assessing and regularly reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s needs were assessed before they moved into the home. One relative told us, “My [family member] used to visit a neighbour here and said it was a nice place. I came to look around when my family said it was becoming too much for me to care for them. The managers also came to visit us at home a few times, which I really appreciated and helped reassure me.”

People’s needs were reviewed regularly and updated when changes occurred. Care plans were in place to guide staff on how to meet people’s needs effectively and safely.

The provider worked with people to plan and deliver care that reflected what was important to them. Care and treatment were provided in line with legislation and evidence-based good practice.

People told us they were supported to eat and drink well. We observed people enjoying their meals in a calm and pleasant environment. People had access to food and drink throughout the day, and staff promoted choice. Kitchen staff knew people’s preferences well and adapted menus to meet their needs.

People were encouraged to remain mobile and independent. Equipment was in place to reduce risks and support safe care. For example, low-rise beds and crash mats were used for people at risk of falls from bed, and floor sensors were in place for people who could not use call bells.

People had access to a secure outdoor space and were encouraged to spend time outside and get fresh air when weather permitted.

The provider worked effectively with other services and professionals to support people’s care. Systems were in place to share information, helping to ensure continuity of care and reducing the need for people to repeat their information when moving between services.

Staff worked closely with a range of healthcare professionals, including GPs, district nurses, podiatry and opticians. Staff told us they had positive working relationships with these services. Information and advice from professionals were shared with the staff team and reflected in people’s care records.

Staff spoke positively about teamwork, and the registered manager told us they were proud of the staff team. People and their families also spoke highly of staff and how they worked together to meet people’s needs.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing, promoting independence, choice and control. Staff encouraged people to live healthier lives and aimed to reduce their future need for care and support.

Staff supported people to remain as independent as possible, providing prompts where needed. We observed staff supporting people to eat and drink with kindness and patience.

People and their relatives told us they were confident staff would seek medical support when needed. One relative said, “If [family member] is unwell, they let us know immediately. Communication is good.”

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.

Staff knew people well and were able to identify and respond to changes in their needs. Updates were communicated effectively across the staff team. However, care records were not always detailed enough to support effective monitoring of outcomes, and staff were still becoming familiar with the new electronic care planning system.

Some records, such as those for repositioning and personal care, did not always show that care had been delivered in line with assessed needs. However, there was no evidence people were not receiving the care they needed.

The registered manager was aware of these issues and had identified improvements were needed to strengthen record keeping and build staff confidence in using the electronic system. This is discussed further in the well-led section of this report.

The provider supported people to understand their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Information about consent was shared with people when they moved into the home. Staff consistently sought people’s permission before providing care, and people’s decisions were respected.

Where people had arrangements in place for decision-making, such as a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA), this information was recorded. The registered manager had checked copies of LPAs to ensure they were valid and in place.