Headingley Park 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 changed to requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 54 (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. People had their needs assessed prior to using the service, however care plans which were ongoing, did not always reflect people's current needs. We found conflicting information relating to falls and pressure care. Pre-assessments evidenced peoples loved ones had been involved in their care planning prior to living at the service.

Records evidenced people received support from a range of external professionals, such as occupational therapists and speech and language therapists, we also found staff had contacted GP's and emergency services as required. However, we received mixed feedback from people's relatives about staff contacting these services in a timely manner. We also found some conflicting information in people's care plans. A relative said, “I have had to alert the staff on 2 occasions my relative was unwell, both times they were admitted to hospital. I believe both these hospital admissions might have been avoided if they had sufficient staff to monitor the health of residents.” We did however receive positive feedback from professionals who told us staff worked well with them and provided care and treatment people needed, and daily records, such as repositioning and nutritional monitoring was in place.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. Partners told us staff worked well with them to meet people's needs. A professional said, “The staff listen to my advice. I would say things in this home have got better recently.” However, improvements were required to people's records, to ensure they contained enough up to date information, to enable staff to follow the correct guidance. We received mixed feedback from staff; some told us the team worked well together whilst others raised concerns about team leaders. A staff member said, “I love my job, we work well together.” Whilst another staff member said, “I don’t have any confidence in the leaders, they don’t do anything."

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. Some relatives told us they did not feel the staff always acted in a timely manner to meet their loved one’s health needs. For example, 1 relative told us they had to prompt staff to access external health professionals. However, people were provided with plenty of fluids, snacks and meals throughout the day, and where people required nutritional monitoring, this was in place. People had access to a choice of meals and people told us they enjoyed the food. A person said, “The food is good, it’s always very good. They will provide whatever I want for breakfast.”

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. Care records lacked detail about people's future wishes and aspirations. We found several malodours in some areas of the service. We also found several communal spaces which were tired and in need of redecoration. We found an area where the curtains remained partially closed, meaning this area was dark, and could disorientate people between night and day. Meetings were held with people, to discuss the service environment, activities and food. However, it could not be evidenced what action was taken as a result of this feedback.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Records evidenced people's consent had been sought or where appropriate their capacity to consent was assessed. People had signed to consent to their care and treatment, including the use of photographs and sharing of information.