Bourley Grange

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 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 care plans were reviewed regularly by staff who knew them well. Reviews took place on a regular basis and at least annually or when a person’s needs changed, ensuring care remained accurate. People and their relatives told us they were involved in creating and updating their care plans to ensure personal care that was meaningful took place. One person told us, “We do have these meetings every so often to speak about care, and I have made suggestions.”

Care plans were detailed and personalised, covering health needs, daily routines, and individual preferences. They were stored electronically, allowing staff to access and update information promptly. This ensured that any changes were communicated effectively across the team.

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.

Care records reflected people’s care and support needs. They included clear guidance for staff on how to deliver care to people to meet their individual needs. Where people’s needs changed or specialist input was required, the service made timely and appropriate referrals to external professionals such as GPs and the speech and language therapy team. Advice provided by these professionals was documented within care plans and implemented by staff, ensuring continuity of care and adherence to best practice.

People and relatives told us they felt confident that health needs were managed effectively and that staff acted quickly when concerns arose.

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.

Processes were in place to share information across the service. Regular staff meetings were held. Daily meetings were also held between, the registered manager, deputy manager and senior carers to highlight any concerns and identify if any action needed to be taken that day. Information shared by visit professionals was disseminated to staff through twice daily handovers.

Staff felt there was good teamwork and felt there were enough staff to meet the needs of people. Staff said, “We do have (enough staff) in memory care to support people with personal care but also to talk to them throughout the day”, “The staffing is okay, especially in dementia care. It goes by the needs of the residents and not the number” and “Sometimes when people call in sick it can be a bit tight. Our other colleagues help us on the floor. Even some of the nurses will help with [personal care] when busy. Wecan’trush people. In the afternoon we do one to ones with residents in theirrooms,maybehandmassages, nails, read books for them.”

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.

Staff worked closely with health and social care professionals to meet people’s individual needs, liaising with GPs, community nurses, social workers, and specialist teams as required. The registered manager maintained good communication with local authorities to adapt support when people’s needs changed. Staff, people and relatives contributed to multi-disciplinary discussions to keep care person-centred and responsive.

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.

Staff and the management team regularly reviewed people’s care plans to ensure they were accurate, up to date and reflected the current needs and preferences of people. Every day there was a ‘resident of the day’ and this included reviewing all information regarding the person, including their care plan and risk assessments as well as talking to them about any changes they would like regarding the care they were receiving.

People and relatives said staff monitored them appropriately. Staff were aware of people’s needs, and who required close monitoring. For example, staff ensured people who needed movement monitors had them in place when they were sat in communal spaces or in their own rooms. Systems were in place to monitor and improve outcomes.

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

There was evidence of MCA assessments being completed for individual decisions such as wound care and living at the service. Where best interest meetings were required, they had been recorded and included within people’s care plans and included relevant people and professionals.

Staff supported people to make choices using their preferred communication methods, always in a respectful and considerate manner. For example, where English was not a person’s first language, the service ensured that either a staff member fluent in the person’s language was available or a telephone interpreter was arranged to facilitate meaningful discussions.