St Lukes 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 inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection 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 service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. People had an initial assessment before they moved into the home to determine if the home was a suitable place for them and they could be supported by staff. Assessments included information about people’s health conditions, communication needs, emotional needs, nutritional and personal care needs and people’s past history and exposure to trauma. This prompted appropriate guidance, such as positive behaviour support plans, to be put in place for staff to follow. These helped staff de-escalate situations and provide reassurance to people and keep them safe. People and those involved in their care took part in assessments and reviews of their needs. Records showed their views and opinions were respected, listened to and implemented as part of the day-to-day support. A person told us, “I have everything I need and I can ask if I need anything.”

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. The physical environment met people’s sensory and physical needs. Reasonable adjustments had been discussed with people individually and then implemented.

Staff observed some people when they were eating their meals as they were at risk of choking. We saw that their meals were prepared as required, such as in small bite size pieces to avoid the risk of choking. Staff also reminded people to eat slowly, which followed guidance from the person’s choking risk assessment. People told us they liked their meals. A person said, “I like the food and I enjoy having a takeaway.” If there were concerns about people’s dietary habits, staff contact speech and language therapists or dieticians.

The service 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. There was a collaborative approach to planning and coordinating people’s care and treatment. The home manager knew who to contact for advice about people’s health and support needs and people had weekly checks from their GP. For example, people’s healthcare practitioners such as their local GP, social workers and specialist practitioners, such as psychiatrists. A relative said, “The staff seem to work very well with other services.” A staff member told us, “We work closely with the GP to make sure people have their medicines available and agree if more is needed. For example, [person] sometimes like to have more to help their condition.” People were supported by staff at appointments booked with external professionals to discuss their continuing health and care needs.

The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. People were being supported with their health, nutrition and hygiene and to maximise their independence and wellbeing. People had access to external health and social care professionals when they needed them. Staff and leaders supported referrals, and whilst they were waiting for them, they worked with people to ensure their needs were met and utilised best practice resources.

Changes in people’s behaviour or presentation which showed a deterioration in their health or wellbeing, were recognised by staff. For example, staff regularly took people’s temperature and carried out blood pressure checks. People’s weights were also recorded. Staff knew and understood the thresholds to look for when taking people’s blood pressure and temperature readings. Should the readings raise concern, staff contacted relevant health professionals, as there could be a possible need for treatment.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent. People’s skills and strengths were discussed with them and those involved in their care, to consider how people’s goals, ambitions and outcomes were planned and achieved. People told us the service benefitted them and helped them get on with their lives. A person said, “I can talk to the staff and they are very helpful.”

Records showed when people received keyworking support from a staff member, staff used their skills and knowledge to enable people to work towards and achieve their aspirations and potential. People were supported to achieve positive outcomes such as developing their independence, wellbeing and self-esteem. It was also important for people to maintain their relationships with their relatives and staff supported them to do this. People were encouraged to eat as healthily as possible and pursue their hobbies and interests. For example, people were given the space to be on their own or spend time with others taking part in therapeutic activities they enjoyed. These included arts, crafts and games.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People’s choices and decisions were respected. The provider had policies to ensure the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) were followed. 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, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People that were assessed as requiring a DoLS had these in place. The manager ensured DoLS applications were made annually before they were due to expire. Records showed that when people lacked mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf were in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. Staff told us they always asked for people’s consent before providing them with support.

People were informed about their rights around consent and respected how they wished to receive person-centred care and treatment. People made their own choices and decisions on a day-to-day basis about what they did, what they ate and how they filled their time. Where people were not able to verbally communicate their choices there were tailored communication plans in place for staff to follow to ensure people were in control of their own lives. People confirmed and records showed they had signed their care plans and consented to the support they would receive.