Roche Abbey 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

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 changed to 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 50 (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 check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. We could not be assured that care plans contained person-centred details which had been discussed with people. Some care plans contained vague and generic information. Information from professionals which had been recorded in people’s daily records was not always added into care plans or communicated effectively to staff members to enable them to meet people’s needs. The provider had started work to review people’s assessments and update these.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. We found care was not always delivered in line with people’s agreed plans of care. Where people required regular support to reposition themselves to minimise risks associate with pressure areas, records did not evidence that this was taking place at regular intervals as required. Daily records evidenced that some people had very long waits in between support with continence care. This placed people at risk of skin breakdown and discomfort. We raised these issues with the provider who increased staff levels and commenced work to review care plans.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. They did not always share their assessment of people’s needs when people moved between different services. People’s plans of care and records were not always reflective of people’s needs. We could not be assured that when people moved between services that records would support a safe transfer. Records did evidence that professionals were consulted regarding people’s needs however professional advice was not always added to people’s plans or followed by staff.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. We could not be assured that people’s health was always promoted. Where people were recorded to have lost weight, robust plans were not always in place to manage this, and daily notes did not evidence that guidance was being followed. We could not be assured that repositioning was taking place to support people’s skin integrity in line with professional advice. The provider was asked to take immediate action to rectify these issues and was able to demonstrate they had started work in these areas.

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. Records did not evidence that people’s health and care needs were consistently recorded or monitored. Where people were at risk of losing weight, monitoring of this did not appear to be completed consistently or in line with risk assessments. Interventions recommended, for example fortified diets were not evidenced in people’s daily notes. There was no evidence that any interventions in place were actively monitored or the effectiveness of this recorded.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment. We could not be assured that people’s preferences for care were always recorded or followed.