Deneside Court

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.

People and most relatives told us they were involved in care planning and were happy with the care provided. Care records provided detailed information for staff to follow and were reviewed regularly. It was not always clear how people and relatives had contributed to these reviews. Staff were aware of people’s needs and how to support them to achieve positive outcomes. Staff were aware of how best to gain informed consent. Best interests decisions had been taken in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005, although some minor issues of restriction, such as wheelchair lap belts had not been considered.

This service scored 71 (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 provided detailed information about their individual needs and how staff could best support them. Preadmission assessments were undertaken, and this often involved multiple professionals. Staff told us that once people were settled at the home their needs were reviewed, to ensure staff could best support them. A professional highlighted the work one staff member had undertaken to actively support and involve people. They said, “[Staff Member] is an excellent advocate for vulnerable residents. They are very precise with ensuring the correct care and support is provided. They have an excellent eye for detail, and over the years, we have worked together. They are able to pinpoint changes early to the residents who reside at Deneside Court.”

Regular reviews of care were undertaken, although it was not always clear from records how people or relatives had actively contributed to care plan changes. Relatives told us they were involved, and staff made every effort to involve people in decisions, as far as they were able.

Some people living at the home were working towards moving into alternative accommodation in the community and living more independently. A professional told us, “Deneside have supported lots of residents over the last couple of years in stepping down to more independent living. At present they are working on several moves for residents to ensure appropriate transfer of care and to ensure an appropriate period of transition.”

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 and relatives told us that they were involved in planning care to the level they wished to be and were involved in reviews of care on most occasions. A relative commented, “Everything seems to be okay, and I’m involved. If I have questions, they always answer them.”

Professionals told us staff provided good care, followed professional advice and sought additional guidance, as appropriate. A professional commented, “I have observed great practice with the vulnerable residents, and they often ask for advice and support when needed or when wanting to explore options to better care for the residents within Deneside Court. They are an excellent advocate, raising concerns regarding their health, and will ask questions to further their own understanding.”

Staff were largely up to date with key training across a range of areas. Staff felt the training provided them with the right skills to support people. They said they could seek additional advice, if they were unsure.

The provider had a range of additional health care staff working across all their services, including physiotherapists, occupational therapists and positive behaviour support specialists. These professionals provided additional guidance and advice to support workers, and regularly reviewed care actions to ensure they met people’s needs. A professional told us, “I do an intervention plan for the therapists or therapy assistants to follow up. Some things are cascaded to support staff, but we do competency assessments on staff to make sure staff know what to do. There are no major issues regarding staff not following plans.”

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

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.

Care plans demonstrated that people’s care was frequently reviewed and updated to ensure that it met their needs. Care staff had a good understanding of people’s care needs and were able to identify issues and provide feedback to health professionals regarding changing support. Some staff suggested improving reviews following episodes of distressed behaviour.

Health professionals attended the home on a regular basis and there were monthly multi-disciplinary meetings to review people’s care and ensure they received appropriate treatment. A professional told us, “I have observed good practice in relation to escalating concerns regarding resident's mental health, including use of MDTs, requests for review, or further understanding the resident's conditions.”

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

There was evidence in people’s care records that consent had been considered. We observed consent being sought from people on a day-to-day basis. Where people did not have the capacity to consent then best interests decisions had been taken to ensure they received the correct care. It was not clear from the best interests processes recorded that the least restrictive option for support had been actively considered, although no one was restricted unlawfully. We spoke with the manager about this.

Best interests decisions had been undertaken for equipment such as bed rails and the use of covert medicines. However, some people had alarms in their rooms or on their front door, to alert staff they were moving and potentially at risk. Some people also wore lap belts when using wheelchairs or other equipment. There were no best interests decision for this equipment. We spoke with the manager about this.

Staff were aware of the Mental Capacity Act and the need to presume capacity to make decisions. Staff understood the importance of ensuring people were able to make decisions as far as they were able.