Salt Hill Care Centre

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.

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. The service had a ‘resident of the day’ where they received feedback from the person and reviewed all of their care records to ensure their needs were met. People told us they were involved in the review of their care.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. This was completed in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. Care records reflected people's care and support needs. The service made timely and appropriate referrals for specialist support from other professionals such as the GP and the speech and language team (SALT). The provider was also regularly in contact with the care home support team. Care plans had been written including guidance from professionals to help ensure people’s needs were met.

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. Processes were in place to share information across the service. Regular staff meetings were held. Flash meetings were also held on a daily basis between the registered manager, nurses, housekeeping and maintenance to highlight any concerns and identify if any action needed to be taken that day. Information shared by visit professionals was disseminated to staff through these meetings.

Staff felt there was good teamwork however felt further staff were needed on one floor due to the increasing needs of the people living there.

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. Staff supported people appropriately. Staff monitored people closely, such as after a fall, and took action when the support of other medical professionals was needed. The staff team had a good working relationship with the GP who undertook a weekly visit. The staff were able to raise any concerns they had about people living at the service. People told us they were able to access external care when required, “They (GP) come here and I can see them.” And, “They take you (when you need to go). I don’t get any trouble so don’t need to”

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. People told us the care they received was good. People and relatives said staff monitored them appropriately. Staff were aware of people’s needs, and who required additional support. For example, staff ensured people who needed movement monitors had these in place when they spent time in communal spaces or in their own rooms. Systems were in place to monitor and improve outcomes.

The provider informed people about their rights in relation to consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Most people told us consent was gained prior to receiving care, “Yes, always. They never do anything without asking me first, I have no worries about that.” However, other people did not feel this was always the case, “They just do it, I don’t like that” and “No they don’t. They say we are going to wash you, no asking.” This was raised to the registered manager who agreed for this would be looked into. Following the inspection, the provider told CQC the actions taken in order to mitigate the risk of recurrence including further training for staff.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff supported people in least restrictive ways. Records around people’s capacity contained all relevant information and were completed in line with national guidance.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Most people told us they were asked for their choices and staff respected their decisions.