St Peters 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.

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 had systems in place to assess people’s needs and we saw evidence that people’s care plans and risk assessments were being reviewed regularly. People’s needs were assessed before moving into the service.

People and their relatives told us that they were included in their assessment of needs and feedback from relatives told us that they felt able to approach the care team if they had any queries about the information in the care plans and risk assessments. One relative told us, “I have no problem discussing any concerns with the management team, nurses or care staff about my [relative]. They too happily approach me with questions and thoughts about my [relative].”

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.

We saw evidence of people being supported by appropriate health professionals such as GP’s, opticians, and chiropodists.

The provider used and electronic care system which enabled staff and management to monitor care delivery and ensure people received the support needed. One staff member told us, “The mobile device accessible to staff has a system notification called message and on the day that anything alters staff are notified of any significant change and it’s also reflected in the residents care plan.”

Care plans contained important information such as if the person had any allergies, nutrition and hydration needs and any associated risks. Staff told us people were involved in the menu planning and we saw evidence of staff encouraging people with their fluid management and healthy eating options.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. Prompt action had not been taken to safeguard people from abuse. The provider had not communicated with the registered manager when concerns had arisen, and the registered manager had not sought advice and support in a timely manner. This lack of joint working had left people at risk of abuse.

We received mixed feedback from health professionals about how well the provider worked in partnership with others to support people’s individual care needs. We saw evidence of referrals being completed to external health professionals such as GP’s and the chiropodist. However, we did identify that some incidents were not always being referred to the appropriate health professionals to ensure joint working helped to safeguard people from potential abuse. Some external health professionals did feedback to us that when they did liaise with the provider, they found them helpful and approachable. One comment included, “The nursing and care teams are always forthcoming with updates and documentation when needed.” The provider has since made improvements to joint working. We have not been able to assess the impact and sustainability of these changes during this assessment.

There were processes in place to ensure that staff worked well together. We saw evidence of this in team meeting minutes. Staff feedback was positive about staff working well together. Comments included, “Everyone looks out for each other, which helps create a safe and supportive environment” and “Everyone works as a team.” Staff confirmed handovers were being carried out.

We saw evidence appropriate referrals were made for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

There were processes in place to ensure people had access to external health professionals and staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People were supported to access external healthcare professionals such as opticians and chiropody to help maintain their physical needs and their wellbeing. Most external professionals told us that they felt staff were well informed of people’s health needs and communication of any changes to people’s needs was shared effectively, comments included, “Communication is effective. I am kept informed of any relevant changes to residents’ health or mobility, which helps me tailor their care appropriately.”

We saw evidence of people’s dietary requirements being met for example, gluten free diets and diabetes management. Feedback from one relative regarding the food was positive, they told us, “I do think the food is good here. My [relative] is even putting on weight. When [relative] first came in here [relative] was underweight.”

During our on-site visit we saw healthy options being offered to people such as fruit and drinks.

The provider had processes in place to monitor people’s health and support needs and outcomes.

We saw improvements in regard to people’s health conditions such as weight increases and received positive feedback from relatives with regards to people’s improved health. One relative told us, “I believe this recovery has been helped tremendously by the whole team at St Peter’s. I cannot thank them enough.”

The provider had processes in place to gain consent to aspects of people’s care such as personal care. However, it was not always clear with regards to decision making around mental capacity and best interest assessments. For example, we reviewed the documentation for 2 people who shared a room and it was not clearly evidenced what the Mental Capacity Assessment outcome was for one of the people in the room or how the decision making was made. We have raised this with the provider to action. The provider has since confirmed they have strengthened their processes for MCA documentation. We have not been able to assess the impact and sustainability of these changes during this assessment.

We reviewed daily care notes and evidence of consent being sought. Feedback from relatives mostly supported that staff engage with their relative and are kind and caring. Comments included, “I have always found the staff to be welcoming, friendly, professional and above all, very caring to all the residents and their loved ones” and “All the staff treat the residents with respect and care.” We did receive one negative comment regarding staff conduct which we have addressed with the provider.

The provider had processes in place for ensuring that Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard [DoLS] had been applied for appropriately and were monitored and reviewed. Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 [MCA] and DoLS.