George Hythe House

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. At our last inspection, people were not effectively supported in line with the mental capacity act and deprivation of liberty safeguards. This was a breach of regulation 11 (Consent) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. At this assessment, we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulation 11.

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 were supported by kind and caring staff that understood their needs well. One person told us, “Staff help me when I need it, they are a lovely bunch.” The registered manager and care staff engaged with people on a daily basis to ensure care was tailored to people’s needs and personal preferences.

Staff monitored people and supported them to be re-assessed when their needs changed. One staff member told us, “We notice and respond when people are declining. For example, we noticed a decline in [person’s] mobility. We referred to an OT [Occupational Therapist] and they now have a new and different type of frame.”

Effective assessment processes were in place to understand people’s needs and ensure their safety. For example, personalised evacuation plans were in place to ensure staff knew how each person needed to be supported to evacuate in the event of a fire or other emergency situation. However, we found that in some instances information within people’s assessment documents was not always up to date. For example, some people’s falls assessment did not accurately reflect their current support needs.

People mostly received care, treatment and support that was evidence-based and in line with good practice standards.

Staff were passionate about ensuring people received good quality care. One staff member said, “I look after residents like they are my own family.”

The providers processes mostly supported effective evidence-based care. However, in some instances, records did not always fully demonstrate how people’s care needs were being met. For example, some people’s repositioning records, although consistently completed by staff, did not always demonstrate people were being supported into a new position.

People were supported by well co-ordinated teams of staff who worked collaboratively to understand and meet people's needs.

Staff told us they worked together effectively and that leaders were very supportive. For example, 1 staff member told us, “The home is very organised and runs smoothly.”

Feedback from partner agencies supported our judgment that staff at the service worked together effectively to meet peoples’ needs.

The provider systems and processes supported effective staff deployment and joined up working.

People were supported to live healthier lives. One person told us, “I go on the swimming and day trips.” People’s health and wellbeing was well monitored and when required, concerns were escalated to health care professionals so people could receive the treatment they needed.

The registered manager knew people well and was passionate about supporting people to live healthier lives.

Effective processes were in place that enabled staff to work with people to ensure their needs were met.

People experienced positive outcomes from the care and support provided by staff. People’s care and support was regularly reviewed to ensure this was meeting their needs and expected outcomes.

Staff told us they monitored people throughout their shift and reported any concerns to senior members of the team when needed.

Processes were mostly effective and ensured safe monitoring of people’s health care needs. Records were completed daily to support monitoring and review of people’s needs. However, fluid monitoring records did not always evidence that people were receiving enough fluids.

People were mostly happy with the care they received and felt staff communicated with them, respecting their rights and choices.

Staff understood the importance of gaining consent from people and valued their choices. Staff described how they would support people to make informed choices by talking through their options and describing benefits of healthy or positive choices with people.

Processes were effective at ensuring consent to care was obtained.