Droitwich Mews 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.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We received mixed feedback in relation to people and relatives’ involvement in people’s care planning. One person told us, “I think staff know me.” A relative said, “Spoke to me a few times at length before admission.” Other people living at the service were unsure whether things had been discussed with them. For example, times people were woken. We shared this with the management team who confirmed they would review this with people. Care plans we looked at included, but were not limited to, communication, health, mobility, nutrition and hydration, cultural, spiritual and religious needs, to enable people to receive care which had good outcomes. For a person with a diabetes care plan, the plan was detailed and provided clear information and detail of what a hyperglycaemia (high blood sugar) and hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) would look like and what to do in the event of. For a person prescribed rivaroxaban, an anticoagulant medication used to treat and prevent blood clots, there was an additional up to date care plan in place. People’s care plans we viewed were up to date and reflected their current needs. However, we discussed these needed to be reviewed to ensure all of the most up to date information was cited in the body of the care plan and all corresponding documents in relation to people’s healthcare needs were correlated effectively. Staff knew people well and were able to describe their current care needs and how best to support them. Staff told us they had enough information about people and were kept up to date with any changes in people’s needs. For example, during handovers and daily meetings.

People received evidence-based care and treatment. For example, we saw the service used nationally recognised assessment tools and evidence-based guidance such as the Malnutrition universal screening tool (MUST) to help identify those at risk of malnutrition. People and relatives spoken with felt the service was meeting people’s needs. We received on the whole, positive feedback about people’s mealtime experiences. Comments included, “Meals good can’t fault them, choose day before, will do something else, come round with drinks, make them if ask, family use bistro area and staff will assist,” “Food very good on whole,” “Usually food okay not as good as when first came, nothing like, plenty of hot drinks. If didn’t like choices could always have egg and chips, jacket potato or omelette,” “Meals very good here last few months, poor before, plenty of it, can have more, don’t have to take what’s given, “99% of the time go to dining room for meals, meals brilliant, can have hot drink when we want.” We did identify records were not always being completed, and when they were they lacked detail. For example, food and fluid intake recordings did not always detail what was offered, how much consumed, any refusals, to ensure a good nutritional intake for people was maintained. Staff meeting minutes showed the registered manager had reminded staff about the importance of monitoring and recording. In addition, since our onsite visit the registered manager had implemented further checks which had improved recording, we were shown evidence of this.

The staff team worked well with each other and external care professionals. There were effective systems for communicating with each other, including handovers, written communication and meetings. However, one professional who worked closely with the service said, “Communication could be a little better, the surgery prefers emails as a mode of communication as this works well and, communication can be an issue if there are agency staff on duty.” Another visiting health professional said, “Very friendly staff and residents, we have no concerns, staff are lovely.”

Staff 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. A visiting health professional told us how they had been offering some support to staff recently in relation to falls. They also told us they felt, “Staff would recognise signs of deterioration in the residents, and they would take appropriate action.” The registered manager shared success stories with us which had resulted in a positive impact on people living in the home. This included transitioning a person into the service who had been living in their own home. The person had self-neglected and not left their home for a long period of time. The Registered manager shared since living at the home the person now showers daily, eats meals with other people, takes part in activities, has their hair done and applies makeup daily. For another person also not managing living in their own home, since moving in they had put on a healthy weight and was participating in the home. They had made a friend for life in another one of the people living at the service. A further person since living at the home said, “I’ve gone from being a 96-year-old to a 69-year-old.” The person joins in with all activities, eats 3 meals a day and snacks. Their family member said, “I don’t know where [family member] would be if they hadn’t of come into the home.”

The management team routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. Where people had risks identified with their health, care plans detailed outcomes and any monitoring required to ensure their needs were safely met. For example, in relation to epilepsy or diabetes care.

Staff told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Where, appropriate, people’s capacity had been assessed in line with the Mental Capacity Act (2005), and applications had been made to restrict people’s liberties to keep them safe where needed. The registered manager understood their responsibilities under the Act. We did identify one care plan we viewed did not state whether the person had capacity or not. We shared this with the registered manager who confirmed they would review this. People told us, and during our observations we saw staff offered people choices and gained consent of people when delivering care. One person told us, “Staff listen to what you say and will do it, very well looked after.” People were encouraged to take as full a part in the running of the service as they wished. For example, some people were involved in recruitment of new staff.