Wayside 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 50 (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 because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. People’s needs were not consistently assessed or accurately recorded. Care plans contained incomplete and inconsistent information, including missing sections and conflicting details. This meant staff did not always have reliable information to deliver effective care. There were sections of peoples care and support plans which were missing. Despite the management team believing these were in existence they were not readily available to staff providing care. For example, 1 person’s care plan contained inconsistent details regarding the correct size of their transfer sling. This put them at the risk of harm as staff were potentially using an incorrectly assessed transfer aid as the documentation was incorrectly directing them.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. Inconsistencies in details in care plans and a lack of up-to-date risk assessments meant care was not always aligned to people’s needs or recognised best practice.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. They demonstrate they had effective systems in place for sharing accurate assessments of information of people’s needs when people moved between different services. There were gaps in communication and collaboration. Inconsistent care records and unclear documentation meant staff and teams were not always working effectively together to support people. Although there were some strengths regarding the engagement with GP’s there were gaps. For example, there was limited coordination between services. Documentation directing the clinical care for 1 person was missing and there was a lack of follow up to ensure the interventions provided were accurate and safe for this person. There were sections on pre-admission documentation including, emotional well-being, which demonstrated a lack of attention to seeking information from others regarding a holistic approach towards care meaning people were at risk of receiving care which was not reflective of their needs. There was a lack of evidence staff were working together to identify or correct errors or omissions in people’s care or support plans indicating ineffective working practices within the team.

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.The provider demonstrated some strengths in supporting people’s health.There was evidence of, regular monitoring of nutritional intake and weight, Involvement of GPs and specialist services, and referrals to healthcare professionals.However, these positive practices were undermined by poor record accuracy and governance.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure outcomes were positive andconsistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. Monitoring and improving systems to monitor outcomes were ineffective. For example, there was incorrect dietary information in 1 person’s care plan meaning outcomes could not be effectively monitored, risk assessments were incomplete and not consistently applied throughout the location. Meaning these could not be effectively reviewed to ensure people’s needs were being effectively met. Care plans contained inconsistent and conflicting information meaning there was no base line of assessment on which effective monitoring could be applied.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment. Consent processes were not consistently recorded or evidenced. While some Mental Capacity Act and DoLS documentation was in place, key areas of care records, including consent sections, were incomplete. This means people could not be assured their rights were being maintained.