Ivy 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

People’s needs were assessed prior to their admission to the service. Although staff had a good understanding and knowledge of how people should be supported, staff’s practice did not always evidence this and improvements were required. The service worked with others to support people’s care provision. People were supported to access healthcare services and receive ongoing healthcare support. The service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

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.

Some relatives had actively been involved in the planning of their family member’s care and support needs and participated in the pre-admission process. This included having their needs assessed and being given the opportunity to visit Ivy Court to look around, to meet staff and others living at the service. A relative told us, “They [Ivy Court] came out to X to assess them. We met the registered manager and were shown around the care home. I was very happy with the plan.” Other comments included, “The assessment was completed on a ‘teams’ call, and we were all involved” and “I looked at about 10 or so care homes and Ivy Court was the one that stood out for me.” Where not all relatives had been involved in this process, this was because some people had been transferred to Ivy Court by external organisations and had not been given a choice of placement.

People’s needs were assessed prior to their admission to the service. The assessment helped the management team assess and determine if the person's needs could be met and if the environment was suitable for them. Information gathered was used to inform the person’s care plan and accompanying risk assessments. People’s protected characteristics under the Equalities Act 2010, such as age, disability, religion, and ethnicity were identified as part of their need’s assessment. Staff knew about people’s individual characteristics.

Most people spoken with indicated to us both verbally and through non-verbal cues that they were happy with the care and support provided by staff. People told us staff were kind and caring. People also told us they had enough to eat and drink and enjoyed the meals provided. Comments included, “The food is very nice” and “I like the food here, you always get plenty and there is choice.”

Staff were able to demonstrate a good understanding and knowledge of how people using the service should be supported. However, staff’s practice did not always evidence this. As previously stated, a person’s care plan recorded specific information relating to how staff should support the person at mealtimes to maintain their safety and wellbeing. On the first day of assessment staff were observed to not follow the person’s care plan. This was discussed with the registered manager and resulted in appropriate action being taken to monitor the person’s wellbeing, written communication being forwarded to the chef as a reminder about the person’s needs and assurance this would be discussed at handovers, staff supervisions and meetings. With the exception of the above person, the dining experience for people was positive. People’s nutrition and hydration needs were assessed and recorded within their care plan. People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet. Where people struggled to recognise the food and drink placed in front of them, care was taken by staff to explain the items provided, to prompt and encourage the person to eat without rushing them.

People and relatives spoken with stated they were involved with theirs or their family member's care and support needs to ensure it was appropriately planned and coordinated.

The registered manager and staff confirmed and demonstrated how they liaised with other organisations and services to ensure effective care and support was delivered. Staff told us information was shared between organisations and services to ensure continuity of care.

Information demonstrated the service worked with others, for example, the Local Authority, healthcare professionals and services to support people’s care provision.

Relatives confirmed staff were responsive to their family member’s healthcare needs. Relatives told us they were kept up to date about their family members needs and the outcome of health-related appointments, with communication mainly conducted through the nursing staff. Comments included, “They [staff] always contact me”, “Yes, we are always kept informed, they [staff] will call and let us know about any changes or when there is a problem” and “I am always updated on X health needs and if the GP had gone in.”

The service worked effectively within and across different organisations to deliver effective care, support, and treatment. People were supported to access appropriate healthcare services and support as needed.

Most people who used the service and their relatives told us they consistently experienced positive outcomes. A relative told us positively about their family member's care needs being met, stating "X does not ask for much and they don't want me to speak to staff about anything."

Staff told us there were suitable monitoring arrangements in place to ensure positive outcomes for people using the service. These included recording and reporting people's needs, observing people's daily routines and monitoring changes to people's health and wellbeing.

Effective monitoring arrangements were in place to monitor and improve outcomes for people in relation to their care and support. These included daily meetings, clinical risk meetings and handovers.

People told us they received a choice about the care and support provided by staff. People had been assessed for their capacity to consent to specific aspects of their care. Where people lacked capacity to consent to their care and treatment, best interest decisions were made in consultation with relevant others, such as relatives or other professionals. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards [DoLS] applications had been made appropriately where required.

Staff had received appropriate Mental Capacity Act 2005 [MCA] and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards [DoLS] training. Staff understood the need to gain consent from people for care and to encourage people to make decisions for themselves wherever possible. For example, enabling people to make choices involving the times they got up in the morning and the time they went to bed, whether to participate in social activities, where to have their meals.

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 MCA. In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards [DoLS]. We found 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. Any conditions related to DoLS authorisations were being met.