St Anne's 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 inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection 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 service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.People and their relatives told us the service consulted them prior to admission about their likes and dislikes. This included, how they wanted their care to be delivered. The service had a pre-assessment process which formed the basis of people’s care plans. At the time of this inspection, the manager and registered manager were strengthening this process to ensure a more holistic approach.

The service did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them. They did not always do this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.Although people and their relatives were involved in creating their initial care plans and risk assessments, the provider did not always ensure they were created in line with good practice guidance. Staff told us they worked with people to support them, and this had included working to support people’s medical conditions and emotional needs. However, this was not always in accordance with safety and evidence-based practice. The providers policies and procedures were not always personalised to the service or being used as a basis for care practice.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their inspection of needs when people moved between different services.People and their relatives told us they felt their information was shared appropriately both within the service and to external professionals, such as the GP. Staff kept daily records of people’s care, these were shared when required. These actions contributed to continuity of care. A health and social care professional said, “All staff know their residents well and there are some very experienced care staff who are happy to train new staff members. In the past we have had the opportunity for ‘shared care’. The skills demonstrated in wound care was very good. The staff know when to call for support.”

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.People were supported by staff to live a healthy lifestyle. Staff told us they were committed to helping people live their best life. Choices were varied and people had access to food and drink when they wanted. A health and social care professional was complimentary about the food within the service and said, “The food always smells great.” However, people’s needs in relation to food and drink were not always consistently recorded. We raised this with the registered manager and manager who sought to improve the consistency of care records.

The service monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it in practice. They worked to ensure outcomes were positive, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.People gave us examples of how their lives had improved since moving to St Anne’s Court. For example, a person had increased their confidence due to the support they had received, and they could live a more independent life. Staff told us they knew how to support people and ensuring people lived the best life possible was their goal. The manager told us they worked with people to make sure they knew what their wishes and goals were. The process for review and updates was not always effective, however, we discussed this with the manager and registered manager, and they planned improvements during the inspection.

The service did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making individual decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. The principles of the MCA were not always applied fully within the service. People did not always have the necessary consents in place to ensure their rights were fully respected. Understanding of the MCA was limited; we raised this with the registered manager who arranged additional training for staff. We signposted the manager to guidance, and they started to improve compliance with the MCA during the inspection. We did not identify any direct impact on people, who told us staff offered them choices and supported them to make decisions about day-to-day activities.