South Haven 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

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.

Although at our last assessment we rated this key question Good, one breach of the legal regulations in relation to consent was identified. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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.

Although there had not been any new admissions to the service since the last assessment the provider had developed new assessment and admission processes to ensure any new admissions would be completed which considered all aspects of people’s needs as well as staffing levels and skills, the environment and the needs and personalities of others already living at the home.

Staff members we spoke with told us there had been an improvement in the care plans which now contained clear, consistent and detailed information about people’s needs and how to support people effectively. A staff member told us, “The care plans are much better than they were, they are helpful and detailed.” During our assessment we reviewed 6 people’s care records in detail including, care plans, risk assessments and daily records and found people were provided with care as described within these records. From discussions with staff, they demonstrated they understood people’s needs and how to best support them.

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 were positive about the support they received. One person said, “It’s very good, I get what I need when I need it.” Care records showed people were given choice and control about their care and support. The service responded to people’s care needs appropriately and nationally recognised assessment tools were in use such as for skin integrity and the risk of malnutrition. Where appropriate, the management team completed referrals to relevant health professionals to meet people’s individual health needs including their eating and drinking needs.

Since the last assessment, effective processes had been implemented to ensure mealtimes were a positive experience, based on best practice. People were generally positive about the meals provided. During lunch time one person described their meal as ‘excellent’ and another person said their food was, ‘very good.’

Since the last assessment additional training had been provided to staff to help improve their approach with ensuring safe, effective and person-centred care would be provided to people. It was evident at this assessment staff skills had improved in this area.

Systems had been implemented to ensure information was shared with and followed by staff in relation to good practice guidance. Additionally, more robust and structured systems had been put in place to ensure relevant updates about how people should be supported or changes in their needs had been put in place to help ensure people were provided with relevant and effective care and support.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

At our last assessment we found people’s capacity had not always been assessed and decisions were being made on their behalf in some cases inappropriately. At this assessment we found improvements had been made in this area.

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

People told us they were happy with the way staff provided care and support, and that staff asked their consent before providing care and treatment. This was observed during the assessment.

At this assessment we found the management team and staff had an improved understanding of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act. This was evidenced by discussions with staff and the management team in relation to consent and best interests, the completion of additional training in this area and more robust and detailed documented evidence of capacity assessments and best interest decisions made.

We found people were provided with the opportunity to make informed decisions and choices about their care and mental capacity assessments had been completed where required in accordance with specific decisions. Specific capacity assessments had been completed for people in relation accommodation, locked doors, care and treatment, the use of bedrails, medicine management and the use of equipment to monitor movements. Where people were assessed as lacking mental capacity to make specific decisions due to an impairment of the mind or brain decisions made on people’s behalf were completed in line with legislation. For example, mental capacity assessments were completed in relation to the use of bed rails and a lap belt for a person which could restrict the person’s freedom of movement. Less restrictive options had been considered however, evidence showed it was in the persons best interests to use bedrails and a lap belt to ensure the persons safety.