South Collingham Hall

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

We assessed 2 quality statements in the effective key question and found areas of good practice and areas for improvement. The scores for these areas have been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good. Though the assessment of these areas indicated an area which needed improvement since the last inspection, our rating for the key question remains good. People’s care and treatment was effective due to their health, care, well-being, and communication needs being assessed. However not all people said they had been involved in planning areas of their care. People’s care plans were inconsistent some were more detailed than others. However, staff were aware people’s preferences and respected these in a person-centred way.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People and their relatives told us staff knew their needs well. However, we received mixed feedback on whether people had been involved in planning their care needs. For example, a person we spoke with said, “The care I get is very good” and a relative told us, “The care is very good. All the staff are very nice. I have no concerns or issues.” However, most people we spoke with told us they had never seen their care plan. A person said, “All the staff are very nice, but I don’t recall seeing my care plan.” A relative we spoke with said, “The physical care is good; we have no concerns. However, I do not recall any involvement with [relative’s] care plan.” This meant there was a risk that whilst the care people received was good it may not always be aligned to their wishes.

Staff knew people’s needs well. Staff knew how to access care records and ensured they referred to healthcare professionals when needed. Staff told us they updated care records following consultations by external professionals to ensure all staff knew of any changes required.

Processes in place meant care plans were inconsistent. Some were detailed and clearly reflected people’s needs well. For example, a care plan relating to healthcare needs for one person was detailed and provided clear guidance for staff. However, another care plan we reviewed relating to communication was not clear in how staff should support the person effectively. We fed this back to the management team who advised they would conduct a full audit of care plans to ensure staff had detailed guidance for all people. Where people’s needs changed, care planning documents were updated so staff understood people’s changes in needs. For example, when a person’s continence needs changed this was clearly documented in their care records. National assessment tools were used, to understand people’s needs and how best to support them. For example, Waterlow and MUST risk assessments were completed for all people. People had oral healthcare assessments in place to ensure people maintained their oral health.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

People praised the staff at South Collingham Hall and how they worked with external professionals. People told us staff supported them to access healthcare professionals and attend any appointments as needed. Relatives we spoke with told us staff were very good at liaising with healthcare professionals when needed.

Staff knew people well which meant they were aware when to seek specialist advice and support for people. Staff told us they contacted the GP and community nursing team when needed. Our observations supported this as we observed staff contacting a healthcare professional when a person became unwell during the assessment. Staff who worked in the kitchen discussed people who required modified or fortified diets. Staff implemented guidance from dieticians to ensure people were provided with a diet in line with their needs.

We spoke with 2 healthcare professionals during the assessment who told us staff at South Collingham Hall referred people appropriately and implemented any interventions as required.

Processes in place demonstrated staff worked well with other services to ensure people received effective support. Care plans detailed specialist advice was implemented. For example, a care plan we reviewed for a person with heart failure had detailed guidance in place which included guidance from the specialist cardiac nursing team in place. Staff accompanied people’s named doctor on reviews to ensure any changes to their health or medicines were documented and implemented as needed.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Consent to care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.