Gosberton House 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

At the last assessment the provider was in breach or the regulation in relation to consent to care. At this assessment we found there had been some improvement and the provider was no longer in breach. However, more time was needed to ensure that the improvements became embedded in the care provided.

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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment was effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s needs had not been fully assessed or reviewed regularly. Information was not consistently recorded in people’s care plans or updated when people’s needs had changed.

Staff told us they did not review people’s care plans on a regular basis. However, they were kept up to date with any changes in people’s care through handovers at the start of each shift. They were confident they had the information needed to provide safe care to people.

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 follow legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Staff had not always used best practice to identify risks to people. Nationally recognised tools had not been consistently used . Where they had been used they had not been regularly reviewed and we could not be sure they accurately reflected people’s needs. The interim manager took immediate action to ensure people’s needs were fully documented using nationally recognised tools.

Advice about following best practice was sought to support people when needed. For example, a nurse told us how they worked in line with the guidance from the NHS tissue viability nurse to support good wound healing.

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 .

Staff worked collaboratively with healthcare professionals to support people's needs. For example, where issues were identified with a person’s feeding tube the GP was contacted for advice and support.

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.

The provider did not always respect people’s rights when delivering care and treatment. People's consent to care, especially where it may be restrictive was not fully documented. For example, capacity assessment had not been fully completed where people were restricted from getting out of bed with the use of bed rails. We raised this with the interim manager who was aware of the issue and had plans in place to review everybody’s care plan.

Capacity assessments and best interest decisions had been completed when people received covert medicines. This is when medicine is hidden in people’s food .

Staff we spoke with had received training in understanding people’s ability to give consent to care, how to assess people’s ability to consent and how to support people to received good care in line with their needs and wishes when they lacked capacity.

Respect forms had been completed to ensure all healthcare professionals were aware of people’s wishes and care decisions as they moved towards the end of their lives.

Where people were unable to consent to living at the home their rights were protected and Deprivation of Liberty authorisations were sought.