Archived: Virginia Lodge 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

This key question was previously rated good. This key question remains good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People and their relatives were confident people’s needs were effectively met. Reviews of people’s needs were regular, and had regard to their input. Assessments of need were comprehensive, covering communication, medicines, health, emotional and physical aspects. The provider was responsive to feedback about people’s spiritual needs needing more clarity in care documentation. Staff understood people’s current needs and communicated with them effectively on an ongoing basis.

The provider used a range of recognised tools to help assess people’s needs and make changes if necessary, For instance, Waterlow and Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST). Waterlow score is a means of assessing people’s risk of developing skin pressure damage. These records were consistently filled in and up to date, helping to inform the provider’s level of response to the risk people faced.

People’s nutrition and hydration needs were consistently met. There were choices at mealtimes and staff were quick to identify when people may like to try something else. Staff made an effort to encourage people to stay hydrated. The provider was responsive to some minor signposting about best practice when supporting people living with a dementia at mealtimes.

Mealtimes were calm, relaxed and there were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. The deputy manager undertook mealtime audits to ensure high standards were maintained.

The provider was aware of some recent aspects of best practice. They were keen to ensure the service had regard to this.

Leaders sought advice from external professionals when required. At times this information needed to be more accessible for care staff to ensure they had it at a glance, but they demonstrated a good knowledge of it.

Accurate records were kept so patterns and trends could be identified and addressed, for instance, with regard to meal and fluid intakes.

The provider ensured people had an up-to-date advanced care plan setting out their current needs and how they wanted to be cared for in the future. This information was useful for visiting professionals, and should someone need to go to hospital.

Leaders were regularly involved in updates about people’s care. Information was shared effectively throughout the service, mostly through regular handover meetings and ongoing communication between staff.

Staff worked well together to meet their shared goals. One staff member said, “The team are really good. Everyone works hard and everyone knows each other’s strengths.”

The local GP and practitioner nurse visited regularly and raised no concerns.

One external professional said, “They communicate well and ask for help when they need it – they tend to manage well.”

People were supported to make healthy lifestyle choices regarding food and drink. The provider recognised the importance of people’s emotional wellbeing and the impact small things could make for instance enjoying a glass of shandy with lunch.

The provider used a range of tools to measure and identify when someone may be at risk of decline. However, they needed to do more to ensure activities helped stimulate people physically and mentally. One person said, “I don’t do a lot anymore, there isn’t much to do.” One relative said, “They don’t seem to have the time for activities anymore – games, that kind of thing.”

Care staff helped deliver activities when they were able, but the provider recognised activities provision had declined in the previous months. They were reviewing this at the time of inspection.

Mealtime options were hearty and healthy. Portion sizes were good, and people enjoyed meals. One person said, “The food is lovely.” One relative said, “The meals are always appetising and it’s all cooked fresh.”

The provider ensured relevant referrals were made when there may be underlying health issues that needed additional support.

The provider needed to review how it recorded diabetes information for staff. This was not always easily accessible or in line with best practice. The provider committed to reviewing these documents in line with guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).

People’s care and treatment was routinely monitored to help ensure needs were met and care could be improved. Outcomes for people were consistent and met their expectations (and the expectations of those best placed to understand people). The provider ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People and relatives were happy with the service provided, and felt staff monitored people’s needs well. One relative said, “They see the doctor regularly and staff let us know if there are any changes.”

People were supported to have control over day-to-day choices. Staff were patient with people, giving them time to make their own choices. People and families were involved in core decisions about their care.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. Staff had received training regarding the MCA and policies were in line with the principles of the MCA.