Northlands House 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

People’s care and communication needs had been assessed with them and their needs and goals for their care identified. People’s treatment was planned with them in order to meet their needs. Staff understood people’s human rights and ensured their needs related to their protected characteristics were identified and met. Staff used a range of recognised tools in order to assess people’s care needs and followed best practice guidance. People’s consent to their care was sought and where they lacked capacity to make specific decisions, legal requirements were met. Processes were in place to monitor people’s weight and fluid intake and required actions were taken. However, people’s enjoyment of meals had been negatively impacted during the planned re-fit of the kitchen. The new kitchen was completed and in use just after our site visits.

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 told us they or those they chose to assist them, had been involved in assessing their care needs. Overall people felt their care plan reflected their care needs. People spoken with could not recall having been involved in reviews of their care. However, the resident’s survey showed 90% of respondents had scored the question about whether they had a say in their care highly.

Staff told us they asked people how they would like their care to be provided and also said people’s needs and preferences were recorded in their care plans. Staff explained some people used non-verbal communication and told us how they used equipment such as white boards and gestures to support communication with people where required. Staff told us they had a resident of the day process which ensured people’s observations and weight were reviewed monthly and their electronic care plans and risk assessments were reviewed.

People's pre-admission assessment records and care plans demonstrated they and their relatives were involved in planning their care. People’s care needs related to their health, care, wellbeing and communication were assessed and goals for the delivery of their care identified. Plans were personalised and identified people’s strengths and preferences. People’s needs related to their protected characteristics as defined by the Equality Act 2010, such as religion, sexual orientation, age and disability had been identified. People’s records documented who was to be involved in reviews of their care.

Nine of the 25 people and relatives we spoke with provided negative feedback about the meals provided, 8 were positive and 3 were neutral in their views. People said they were not happy with either the presentation or the quality of the meals. At lunch on one unit on the first day a person described their meal as, “one big blob” and another person said the meal was “inedible.” People also said there was a lack of choice. However, the home’s kitchen had been undergoing a re-fit for some weeks since the end of May 2024. Therefore, a temporary, alternative menu was being provided, as staff had to prepare and serve meals from a mobile kitchen unit sited in the car park during the work. The temporary kitchen arrangements had negatively impacted people's enjoyment of the meal experience during the works. The resident’s survey completed prior to the kitchen re-fit showed 94% of people had rated the variety of food as positive and 96% had rated the quality of food as good. The kitchen re-fit was completed 2 days after our second site visit. The manager told us since the new kitchen has been operational, people have again provided positive feedback about the meals.

Staff told us the provider had a 4 weekly menu rota and recipes were then modified to suit people’s preferences. They said arrangements were in place to ensure people’s dietary needs could be met and their views on the menus were regularly sought. Leaders told us how they completed a weekly audit of people’s nutritional data, to ensure people’s weights, referrals and dietary information were up to date. Leaders told us they were in the process of changing the tool they used to assess the risk of people developing pressure ulcers to a newer and more detailed evidence-based tool. They were also reviewing their wound care records to make them more streamlined, to support people’s pressure area care. Staff told us how there were prompts on their electronic handsets to ensure people who required support to re-position were assisted in accordance with national guidance, to mitigate the risk of them developing pressure ulcers.

Staff used a variety of recognised clinical tools to assess people’s clinical needs. For example, staff used a pain scale to assess people’s pain, if they were unable to verbally communicate, they were in pain. Staff followed best practice guidance, people at risk of urinary infections or dehydration had targets for their daily fluid intake and staff documented people’s fluid intake, which was then monitored. Processes and policies were in place to ensure appropriate checks were completed, if people experienced a fall, for example. This ensured they were monitored for signs of deterioration and additional checks were completed if the person had hit their head or if they were on medication which might prevent their blood from clotting, as per national guidance.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

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.

Relatives confirmed their loved ones had been asked by staff for their consent to their care.

Staff said if people had a power of attorney in place, then the records were checked, to ensure they were valid. People’s records showed whether they had consented to their care or if a person was legally authorised to make certain decisions on their behalf where they lacked capacity to do so. Staff understood how to assess which decisions people had the capacity to make. Staff told us they had a checklist they used to assess people’s capacity where required.

People’s care plans provided staff with written guidance about when and how to seek their consent. People’s records demonstrated staff sought their consent for their care. Records showed staff took relevant measures to enable people to make their own decisions. If a person was assessed as lacking capacity to make a decision, then the decision was made in their best interests with the involvement of relevant parties. A health care professional confirmed they had been involved by staff in making best interest decisions for people, which records confirmed. Records showed staff understood people’s right to make ‘unwise’ decisions where they had the capacity to make the decision. Staff were all required to complete training on the Mental Capacity Act and records showed they had done so.