Whitestone 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 assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

The service was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to staff training. Improvements were found at this assessment and the service was no longer in breach of this regulation.

This service scored 62 (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 was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. For example, people’s care plans were routinely reviewed and updated each month or sooner if there was a sudden change in their needs. Reviews, however, were not always effective in identifying a lack of information and guidance for staff on how to recognise and respond to changes in people’s needs, including specific healthcare conditions. There had been no new admissions to the home since our last inspection therefore we were unable to review the effectiveness of the providers initial care needs assessment systems and processes. Staff told us they knew about people’s current and changing needs through their care plans and shift handovers meetings. A family member told us they were involved in monthly reviews of their relative’s care plan and were consulted about any changes outside of the review process.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did not always do this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. For example, the provider used assessment tools to help determine the most appropriate care and treatment people required. They did not always refer to evidence based good practice for guidance on how to recognise and respond to the signs and symptoms that may indicate a decline in people’s health. However, appropriate and timely referrals were made to external professionals such as dieticians and the falls team to ensure people received the care and support they needed.

The provider supported people to manage their health but did not always support people to manage their wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. For example, throughout the day we observed most people sat in the lounge watching TV whilst staff were busy carrying out care tasks. Staff chatted with people and checked on their wellbeing, but did not engage people in any type of meaningful activities. The provider told us the previous activity co-ordinator had left some time ago and not yet been replaced. However, records showed people attended health and wellbeing appointments with other healthcare professionals.

The provider supported people to manage their health but did not always support people to manage their wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. For example, throughout the day we observed most people sat in the lounge watching TV whilst staff were busy carrying out care tasks. Staff chatted with people and checked on their wellbeing, but did not engage people in any type of meaningful activities. The provider told us the previous activity co-ordinator had left some time ago and not yet been replaced. However, records showed people attended health and wellbeing appointments with other healthcare professionals.

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. For example, staff monitored and maintained records for aspects of people’s care where they were associated risks such as malnutrition and dehydration and skin breakdown. A family member told us they felt their relative received the right care with good outcomes.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. For example, Staff obtained peoples consent before providing care and support and decisions made on behalf of people who lacked capacity were made following best interest decision-making processes.