Vaughan Lee 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.

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.

People had their needs assessed but reviews of people’s needs were not always thorough. This meant care plans were not always reflective of people’s current needs. Assessments and care plans were not always updated in a timely way. This could lead to staff not having up to date information about people’s needs and preferences. People had their needs assessed before they moved to the home. This helped to make sure staff were able to meet people’s needs and expectations. One person told us, “They came to my home before I came in and did an assessment, and then I came to see it with my relative.” Some people told us they had originally stayed for a short period to see if it was the right place for them.

Improvements were needed to make sure people always received care and support in accordance with up-to-date legislation and best practice guidance The staff used recognised tools to assess healthcare needs such as nutrition and tissue viability. However, we found records did not always give clear guidance for staff to follow to minimise risks identified by these assessments. This meant people could receive care and support which was not in accordance with good practice. Following the inspection the provider sent evidence to show how improvements would be made. A large investment in staff training in terms of time and many external courses has resulted in a significant improvement in the level of staff training at all levels. There were now systems in place to make sure all staff were up to date with current best practice and legislation. People were complimentary about the food served at the home. We saw specialist diets were provided which met people’s needs and preferences. One person told us about their preferred diet. They said, “They make me meals that I like. I know they make another person sandwiches in the night if they are hungry.”

Staff worked with other professionals to make sure people’s needs were met. The staff liaised with other professionals to make sure people received appropriate care and treatment. Visiting professionals were complimentary about how the staff worked with them to meet people’s needs. One professional told us, “They have a lovely rapport with people which is lovely to see.”

People lived in a home where they were supported to manage their health and wellbeing to promote their independence, choice and control. People were involved in monitoring their health and wellbeing, where appropriate, with other professionals. People told us they had access to healthcare professionals according to their individual needs. One person said, “They help you look after your body and mind.” They told us there were regular exercise classes which catered for people of all physical abilities. They also said there were quizzes and puzzles which helped to, “Keep the mind sharp.” Visiting professionals felt staff worked well with them to monitor and treat people’s health care needs.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent. Care plans did not always give staff enough guidance to ensure positive outcomes for people. Staff told us, and records showed, people were involved in the review of their care plans. However, we found some aspects of care plans, such as changes to medicines and care needed in respect of the prevention of pressure damage, were not updated fully at reviews. This meant staff did not always have the information they needed to ensure good outcomes for people. We found information was spread across different folders and a computer system making it difficult to see the full picture of how a person’s needs would be met. Following the inspection the provider sent evidence of the immediate actions taken and further action planned to address these issues.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People told us staff always asked them if they were happy to be supported and they were able to make choices about the care they received. One person told us, “You choose what you do and when.” Where people were assessed as lacking capacity to make certain decisions, decisions were made in their best interests in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.