Geraint House Residential 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, 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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s needs were assessed before moving to the service to ensure their needs could be met. Assessments were carried out by the registered manager or acting manager. People using the service at the time of this assessment had been using the service for many years, so we did not have any recent pre- admission assessment records to review.

People had their current physical, mental health, sensory, social and communication needs assessed and reviewed monthly. Where changes were identified, care plans were updated accordingly. A person with increasing mobility needs was supported to move to a ground floor room to increase their comfort and safety.

Staff were knowledgeable about peoples current and changing needs. They were kept updated about any changes. A key worker system was in place. Staff had monthly meetings to gather feedback from people about their current and changing needs. This was shared at staff team meetings, so staff were kept up to date with any changes.

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.

The provider had policies and procedures for staff to follow so care, and support was delivered in line with national standards and evidence based good practice. For example, policies for infection control, the safe handling of medicines and safeguarding people from abuse were in place. Staff also had training which was updated and refreshed accordingly. The provider told us staff were fully up to date and complaint with training requirements.

Staff completed the ‘care certificate’ as part of their induction training when they first began working at the service. Five members of staff had completed or were undertaking additional nationally recognised qualifications in care. This meant staff had access to current good practice standards in the care sector.

Staff were knowledgeable about people’s specific conditions and described how they were supported with these. Information about people’s specific conditions and action staff were required to take to meet these needs was available to staff.

People’s nutritional and hydration needs were known and met. Where risk was identified staff had consulted with healthcare professionals. The care plan for one person with identified nutritional risk was not as detailed as it could have been and did not contain information such as what additional snacks the person may prefer when their appetite was poor. However, staff were monitoring their daily food consumption, monitoring their weight and ensuring they received prescribed food supplements.

People we spoke with told us they enjoyed the meals provided and always had a choice. One person said, “The home provides good food with plenty of choice.” The lunch time meal during our site visit appeared appetizing and nutritious. A plentiful supply of fresh and frozen food was available to support menu planning and snack provision.

Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about people’s dietary needs.

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, teams and services worked together with people to effectively deliver coordinated, timely, consistent, person-centred care, support and treatment. Systems and processes were in place to share information with external health and social care professionals.

People had access to appropriate services such as community mental health teams, community nurses for physical health. Staff liaised with external teams and followed their advice and guidance. Staff made appropriate referrals as required to external agencies.

A recent local authority contact monitoring visit was positive with improvements noted regarding the service meeting contractual obligations. Feeback from the commissioner was positive.

Staff told us team working and communication was good.

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’s day-to-day health and wellbeing needs were met, and people experienced positive outcomes related to these needs. Staff knew people well and took action when changes were identified. Care records confirmed referrals to external healthcare professionals for further assessment and or guidance, were made when required.

People had access to community mental health services, community nurses, GP’s, dentists, opticians and chiropodists.

Staff identified risks to people’s health and wellbeing and supported them to prevent deterioration as much as possible. For example, supporting people to remain as active and mobile as possible through walking and exercise with games. People had access to balanced nutritious meals including fresh fruit and vegetables.

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.

People’s care records confirmedtheir careneeds were regularly reviewed. Where people had experienced a change in theirwellbeing or health needs, the staff had worked with external healthcare professionalsto improve people’s outcomes.Forexample,a person had a continence assessment in response to changing needs. Another person was referred to a ‘falls prevention team’.

The acting manager completed daily walk rounds to assess and monitor people’s care and treatment. Care plans were reviewed monthly or sooner if any changes to health or wellbeing. A ‘resident of the week’ system was in place where key workers reviewed the care plan and sought feedback from the person about their health and wellbeing.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Peoples’ rights and decisions around consent were understood and respected by staff and the service.

Staff sought consent before delivering care and support. Staff respected people’s choice to refuse care and support. They found ways to encourage people to accept support when required. For example, they deployed staff known to have a good relationship to offer support and prompting when this was the case. However, they respected people’s choice when support was refused.

People had their capacity to make decisions assessed. At the time of our assessment people had capacity to make decisions. There was no one subject to any deprivation of liberty safeguards. Staff had training and understood the mental capacity act and associated deprivation of liberty safeguards.

The provider told us physical restraint was not being used for any person at the time of this assessment.