Flowerdown 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

At our last inspection we found the service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to the premises and equipment. At this inspection we found the service was no longer in breachof this regulation.

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 needs were assessed moving into the service, reflecting their physical, health, wellbeing and communication needs. Care plans and risk assessments were person-centred, regularly updated and explained how people preferred to be supported for example, with their personal care.

Clinical assessment tools were used effectively. For example, people’s weight was monitored when this was identified as a concern, and, when people were identified as losing weight, action was taken to address this.

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 received care in line with their care plans and risk assessments. These used nationally recognised clinical tools to record and monitor people’s needs. For example, people who were at risk of developing pressure injuries were assessed, monitored and supported to reduce the risk of developing pressure injuries.

Staff told us how they followed clinical guidance, for example, if a person had a fall or if they appeared unwell.

At meal times the provider adopted a ‘whole home’ approach, where staff from all roles supported with the meal time experience. Staff were unrushed and patient, meaning people enjoyed their meals at their own pace. We observed people who required a modified diet were supported in line with their care plans. For example, some people had their meals prepared to a specific texture, as recommended by a health professional.

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.

The provider had positive and effective relationships with visiting healthcare professionals. They had regular meetings and had introduced a professional’s breakfast. This allowed health care partners from different specialisms to meet at the same time to coordinate joined up support for people and build relationships with the staff.

Staff told us, and records showed, referrals to healthcare professionals were made promptly and appropriately. One healthcare partner said, “They are always quick to contact me”. Healthcare partners told us they felt instructions and advice they provided were followed by staff. Records showed when guidance provided was not having the desired effect, staff referred back to professional’s and sought further advice.

Staff worked well together, and information was shared effectively during handover meetings.

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.

Relatives told us about how they felt provider had improved the health of their family members. One relative told us, “[person] went in [to Flowerdown] earlier this year, and [person’s] health has improved a lot”. Another told us their relative moved in when they were very unwell and said, “They have looked after [person] really well and [person] has now been there for years”.

The provider focussed on how activities improved people’s emotional and physical well-being. They introduced a ‘whole home’ approach to life enrichment, where they matched staff talents, interests and hobbies to those of people. For example, they started a book club, and knitting club which people enjoyed. As a result of this initiative, the provider recorded a greater number of life enrichment activities taking place for people, improving their wellbeing.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

When the service identified issues, they acted to improve outcomes for people. For example, it was identified people’s pressure injury care and prevention could be improved. An investigation was completed which identified improvements were required in how often staff supported people to reposition. This was shared with staff, and as a result, adjustments to care practice were made which had a positive impact on peoples’ pressure injuries.

There were systems and processes to monitor, analyse and highlight concerns with people. For example, 1 person had an increase in the number of falls they were having. The provider implemented different strategies and healthcare professional advice which led to the person having no further falls.

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

The provider mostly worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). Mental capacity assessments completed, and people’s care plans detailed their capacity and the support needed for them to make specific decisions. Decisions made in people's best interests were recorded and involved relevant people. Staff told us they knew the importance of seeking people’s consent, and we saw and heard staff asking people for their consent. For example, when staff were supporting people to eat, they asked them if they were ready. However, we observed a small number of occasions where some staff did not always ask people for their consent. For example, when they removed people’s aprons.

Although people’s mental capacity assessments were completed and were detailed, we found a small number of examples where the provider’s processes had not been followed in relation to consent. We discussed this with the registered manager who took action to address this.