Marsden Heights 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. Whilst more complex needs were not always fully reflected in care plans, people and relatives confirmed they were involved in the assessment process and felt people’s needs and preferences were met. There was an emphasis on improving outcomes for people the service worked with healthcare professionals to monitor and improve people’s health and wellbeing. Staff had a good understanding of consent and were considerate of people’s wishes.

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.

People’s care needs were routinely reviewed. Relatives confirmed they were kept informed when people’s needs changed and had input in people’s care. A relative told us, “I am up to date with the plan of care and am highly satisfied with [person’s] care.”

Assessments were up to date and staff understood people’s current needs. Staff confirmed they had access to people’s care plans and were kept informed about any changes to people’s needs in daily handover meetings. When asked how the service ensures care plans are person-centred and meaningful the registered manager responded, “We take account of resident’s wishes, preferences, strengths, likes, dislikes, religious and cultural beliefs, race, gender, sexual orientation etc. We devise a comprehensive personalised care plan of each resident ensuring all identified, assessed and presenting needs are met.”

Whilst we saw evidence people’s needs were assessed using a range of assessment tools, people’s needs were not fully reflected as information was not always robust. For example: several records did not include detailed strategies to guide staff, and at times information was inconsistent. Body maps and recording tools were used to monitor health concerns, and charts were used to mark care delivery in a way that enabled managers to check people’s needs were being met, easily.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

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 received minimal feedback about whether there were continuous improvements made to people’s care and treatment. However, a relative told us, “[Person] is slowly losing their mobility and things are bound to get worse, but staff manage his needs as they come and we take it day by day.”

People who used the service generally experienced positive outcomes. A staff member spoke of situations in which people previously cared for in bed or who relied on a wheelchair, becoming more mobile after receiving appropriate care and support. The registered manager advised, “We work in partnership with various partners to achieve desired outcomes for the residents and care plans have clear outcome focused goals for short, medium and long term.”

There were effective approaches to monitor people’s care and treatment and their outcomes. Care plans reviewed during the assessment were outcome focused and included objectives. We saw evidence routine monitoring was in place and the service had regular input from healthcare partners to ensure people’s clinical outcomes were monitored and improved.

People’s views and wishes were taken into account. A person using the service said, “The place is super. Staff are there if you want them, for whatever.” Several relatives confirmed they were consulted and had input in any decisions.

Staff understood the importance of obtaining consent before they delivered care and treatment and confidently explained how they sought consent. A staff member told us, “Ask them if it’s okay to help them and talk through what you are doing.” The registered manager confirmed advocacy services were used when required, to support people with decision making. Currently 2 people had access to advocacy support.

People’s capacity and ability to consent was taken into account and they, or their relatives were involved in planning, managing and reviewing their care and treatment. We saw evidence consent was discussed in people’s pre-assessment paperwork and records of consent being sought for decisions such as COVID-19 testing.