Sycamore Court

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 were safe and protected from avoidable harm. People’s health and care needs were assessed to ensure the service could meet their needs. People were supported by staff who had received comprehensive and appropriate training. The staff worked alongside other health professionals to ensure people received the right care and treatment. All staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act.

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's health and social needs were assessed before coming to live at the service; the impact of these had been fully considered and there was clear information about what was important to people and how they would like their care and support to be delivered. This had also ensured the service could meet the identified needs of the person and that staff had the necessary training to keep them safe and well. There was evidence of family involvement within the documents. People’s communication needs were assessed regularly and different methods of communication tried and reviewed so as to ensure people were offered every opportunity to participate in their care decisions. People’s care records were reviewed regularly to ensure they remained an accurate reflection of people’s needs. The provider's processes for assessing and reviewing people's care and support needs were robust. People's assessments included sufficient detail about their individual care needs and preferences, which had ensured their needs were met consistently and effectively.

The service 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. Recognised assessment and monitoring tools were used appropriately to track improvements or concerns. The management team had oversight of these and planned action appropriately. The service had links with other organisations such as tissue viability services and speech and language therapists (SaLT). Staff were given training which followed current good practice guidance. Staff told us how they worked alongside the GP’s, social workers and other health and social care professionals to ensure referrals were made and any recommendations were acted upon. For example, people’s ability to eat safely and maintain a healthy weight were assessed and monitored and appropriate action taken. Staff were knowledgeable regarding people’s eating requirements and this was clearly recorded to ensure all changes were shared. Where needed, advice was sought from healthcare professionals on how people’s diets should be adapted to suit them. Information was available in the kitchen to ensure people received appropriate drinks, meals and snacks. Food and fluid charts were completed to monitor people’s intake, which allowed staff to provide support and encouragement to people who were struggling to eat and drink. People’s care plans showed the service worked in conjunction with external health care professionals, to ensure people received the care they required in line with their changing needs.

People's health and social needs were assessed before coming to live at the service; the impact of these had been fully considered and there was clear information about what was important to people and how they would like their care and support to be delivered. This had also ensured the service could meet the identified needs of the person and that staff had the necessary training to keep them safe and well. There was evidence of family involvement within the documents. People’s communication needs were assessed regularly and different methods of communication tried and reviewed so as to ensure people were offered every opportunity to participate in their care decisions. People’s care records were reviewed regularly to ensure they remained an accurate reflection of people’s needs. The provider's processes for assessing and reviewing people's care and support needs were robust. People's assessments included sufficient detail about their individual care needs and preferences, which had ensured their needs were met consistently and effectively.

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. People were encouraged by staff to eat healthy meals and drink regularly to maintain their physical health. They were encouraged to walk and be active, and to take part in activities. Care documents showed there was evidence of regular reviews and input from the GP, Optician, Dentist and Chiropodist. Equality and diversity were embedded in the principles of the service and the provider had an equality and diversity policy in place to protect people and staff against discrimination. There were processes in place to guide staff about how to support people to lead healthier lives. People's care plans and risk assessments were reviewed regularly, for example people were weighed regularly to ensure they maintained a healthy weight and a chiropodist ensured foot care to enable them to keep active. There were organisational policies and protocols in place to support staff to deliver safe and effective care.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. Comments from relatives were positive, and included, “They let us know when [relative] is unwell and tell us what they are doing to help them.” Another told us, “[Relative] has improved since coming to live here, they are brighter and have put on weight because they are eating properly.” Staff told us they carry out care reviews every month or more regularly if there are concerns and discuss changes in care on each shift. One said, “We talk everyday about people, our residents can change quickly, we discuss any changes at shift change. We continuously monitor to make sure we are meeting their needs.” The staff team worked closely with the GP, dieticians and speech and language therapists (SaLT). Care plans and assessment tools were in line with guidance from the national institute for health and care excellence (NICE). The provider carried out assessments and reviews to ensure they were regularly monitored for changes in their level of need. There were organisational systems in place to monitor people’s care and treatment and their outcomes. Audits were used to identify issues and themes and to learn lessons to provide positive outcomes for people.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People told us, “They ask me first because I need help and always ask me what help I need, they don’t just do it.” Relatives told us, “My relative can give consent for simple everyday things, but not for other things, we have had a best interest meeting with the doctor and I know they have forms for my relative with the social worker.” Staff we spoke with were able to tell us how they offered people choices in their daily care and demonstrated an understanding of people’s right to make their own decisions. Staff told us, “We treat everybody with respect, we never take anything for granted.” Staff had received training in safeguarding and The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. 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 Mental Capacity Act (MCA). In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The service was working within the principles of the MCA and if needed, appropriate legal authorisations were in place to deprive a person of their liberty. The documentation supported that each DoLS application was decision specific for that person. For example, regarding restrictive practices such as locked doors, sensor mats and bed rails. We saw that the conditions of the DoLS had been met.