Coundon Manor 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.

This is the first assessment of this service under this new provider. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 67 (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 their health and care needs. Assessments for most people discharged to the home were carried out by the trusted assessor in hospital. The registered manager assured us they carried out a detailed review of the assessments to be confident they could meet people’s needs. Most people told us their needs and preferences had been discussed with them or their relatives when they first arrived at Coundon Manor. Comments included: “They did sit down and discuss [Name’s] care initially” and “They did discuss my care needs first of all.” People's care plans were reviewed at least monthly to ensure they continued to reflect people's needs and preferences for their care delivery.

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. There was effective recording and monitoring of people’s nutritional and fluid intake, with people being referred for specialist advice when a need was identified. Where people were not eating and drinking enough to remain well, this was shared with staff during daily meetings so people could be encouraged to eat and drink more. Staff were able to identify those people whose dietary and fluid intakes needed to be monitored. One staff member said, “We have to keep a close eye. [Name] didn’t eat much at all yesterday. If it’s the same today, then we’ll tell the nurse, and they will talk to the doctor.” Catering staff were aware of people nutritional needs and when people required a modified diet. Information about modified diets was available for catering staff to refer to. Most people were positive about the food options available to them. One person told us, “The meal choice is 1 meat dish and 1 vegetarian usually. Generally, I like the food and there is a cooked breakfast every morning.” Another person said, “The food here is quite good, there’s a choice of 2. If you don’t like it, they can do sandwiches.” Some people told us they preferred food prepared by their relatives and this was accommodated.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. The registered manager told us people living at the home had not always benefited from a good service from a key health organisation they worked with. The registered manager had started to address this, and felt the relationship had begun to show signs of improvement. Another healthcare professional told us staff knew people well and said, “Any information I have requested, I have got.” Staff told us they were kept informed about people’s needs through daily ‘flash’ meetings and handovers between shifts. Daily ‘flash’ meetings were structured, detailed and informative. Information was shared about people who had been identified with a specific need or had a potential or known risk to ensure they received additional support and monitoring to address the concern and/or identify further actions. One staff member told us, “I think teamwork is good. We all help each other which helps the residents have a good day.”

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. People were referred to external healthcare professionals to ensure issues were identified and addressed and to promote positive outcomes for people. This included the community occupational therapist, physiotherapist, speech and language therapy, opticians and dentist. Advice from healthcare professionals was recorded within people’s care plans. One person told us, “I am in the early stages of working with the physio. I met her a few weeks ago and there is a plan to get me up into my chair and get me to meals.”

The provider generally monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it and ensure outcomes were positive. However, where people could demonstrate anxiety or distress there was no evidence charts used to record those episodes were being reviewed to ensure care and support was safe and consistent during episodes of high anxiety. During our review of these charts, we identified an episode which should have been recorded and reported due to the level of anxiety demonstrated by a person. The registered manager assured us they would introduce processes to regularly review these records to ensure care planned continued to meet people’s needs. Other areas of people’s care were well monitored and information shared to promote positive outcomes for people.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Staff offered people choices and understood people had the right to decline the support offered. Staff recognised they had to work in people’s best interests if a refusal to accept support placed people at risk. Comments included: “Just because the residents can get confused, we still ask what they want. We have to, it’s their right” and “We always ask before we do anything or provide any care. If they said go away, we would and then we would go back later to try again. If they kept saying no, we would tell the nurses.” Managers understood how and when to formally assess whether people had the capacity to make decisions about their care and treatment. Where people with capacity had made decisions with risk, the provider respected people’s right to make those decisions. However, there was no assessment for 1 person with fluctuating capacity who had chosen not to follow healthcare professional advice. The registered manager assured us they would address this immediately to evidence the person had the capacity to understand the decision to be made. Records were maintained of people’s power of attorney and whether for finance and/or health decisions. This ensured people with the legal right were involved in decision making.