Sutton Hall and Lodge

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 requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has remained 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 58 (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 record people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs accurately.

People’s needs were assessed and person-centred support plans and risk assessments were in place to guide staff. These were not always sufficiently detailed or accurate. Staff were unable to show inspectors how they would access care plans and risk assessments on handheld devises they used. One staff member said, “There is not enough time to read the care plans and they are very long. I can ask [senior staff] who have the knowledge if I have not enough time to read the care plan.”

We did find that staff knew people well, and were able to tell us about their support needs. People and their relatives told us they were involved in developing care plans and risk assessments.

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.

People’s nutritional needs were met. Kitchen staff had a good knowledge of people’s dietary needs. One person said, “They know what I like.”

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.

Staff worked well together and we observed staff respected each other and had a good rapport. Staff said, “The staff team are brilliant” and “How brilliant are the staff here? They are amazing.”

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.

However, we found shortfalls in medicines management, that presented risks of negative impact on people’s health, which we have addressed referred to in the safe domains of this report. People’s health conditions were documented, and people were supported to access a range of health care professionals and equipment. Staff worked closely with other agencies to ensure people’s needs were met. People told us the staff and managers worked well with other agencies. One said, “The home went out of their way to access [persons] medication. There was a problem with the chemist but it all got sorted.”

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and

consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. There was evidence of regular review, however reviews had not always identified missing information or ensured records were updated effectively or accurately when changes occurred.

Some people’s care records relating to mental capacity were contradictory. Records in relation to capacity and MCA were either incomplete or not sufficiently detailed. There was not always detail or follow up with best interest decisions or records. We have referred to this in the safe domain of this report. However, people told us they were involved in decisions about their care and support. We observed staff sought consent before supporting people with their needs. We saw staff explaining to people what they were doing and why.