Finch Manor Nursing 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 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 inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were good, and people and relatives 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.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. People’s care plans were up to date, regularly reviewed and person centred. The plans accurately reflected people’s care need requirements, they considered their physical, mental health, sensory, social and communication needs. Staff knew people well and were able to identify changes in their needs or deterioration promptly, ensuring medical assistance could be sought without delay. People and relatives told us they were involved in the review of care plans.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. We found ongoing inconsistencies in pain management, as some clinical staff remained unaware of the Abbey Pain Scale, a concern identified at the previous assessment. However, care plans reflected people's individual needs and were updated when these changed, and people’s nutrition and hydration needs were appropriately assessed and met, including where risks or complex health conditions were present. A family member told us their relative was complex and refused care most of the time and described staff being creative to ensure their relatives skin integrity was well managed. A person told us, “They manage my diabetes well.”

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. Staff knew people well and communicated effectively with visiting professionals. A visiting professional described an effective multi-disciplinary approach in the service which invited the community matron, senior nursing staff and the GP and others where relevant, which focused on people’s wellbeing and avoiding unnecessary hospital admissions and supporting care within the service. Professionals provided positive feedback about the staff team’s responsiveness to advice. Some staff identified opportunities to improve shift handovers to strengthen communication between teams.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing and access healthcare services when needed. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s individual health needs and made timely referrals to healthcare professionals. Visiting professionals provided positive feedback about the provider’s approach to recognising and responding to deterioration.

People were supported to maintain a balanced diet and adequate hydration, with choices available to meet individual preferences and assessed needs. The provider reported positive outcomes from dietary interventions, including a reduction in the number of people requiring fortified diets. Relatives told us alternative meal options were offered where preferred. One person expressed dissatisfaction with the menu choices available, and this was shared with the registered manager who shared residents' meetings where the menu was recently discussed and the change in food suppliers.

People had opportunities to take part in a range of meaningful activities both within the service and in the community. Activities were planned and accessible across different areas of the service, and families were supported to spend time outside the home with their relatives.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. Regular reviews of care records were undertaken, and actions were taken promptly to improve outcomes for people. For example, care plans were updated to support the effective management of diabetes, and wound care. The provider used a digital care planning system, enabling the registered manager to oversee care plans and daily records in real time. This supported effective oversight and ensured information was accurate, up to date and reflective of people’s current needs.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and staff did not always follow the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA), the legal framework that protects people who may lack capacity to make specific decisions and requires staff to act in their best interests. We found a small number of assessments and best interest decisions had not been completed appropriately and did not involve relevant professionals and relatives where required. We requested the provider to submit an action plan to address these concerns. However, we observed staff seeking people’s consent before providing care and support and respecting people’s rights when delivering care and treatment. People spoke highly of the staff, and relatives told us they felt involved in decision making, particularly where their relative lacked capacity. One relative told us, “I have no safety concerns, and I feel involved in decisions, there is good communication and responsive care that includes family participation.”