Cressington Court 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

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 improved to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this. We assessed 6 quality statements in the effective key question. Although we were assured staff sought people’s consent before they carried out care and treatment, people’s records around their consent to care and treatment did not always align with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act. People were involved in the assessment of their needs. People’s care was planned with their involvement, in line with best practice guidelines. Processes to monitor people’s nutritional and hydration intake had been reviewed since the last assessment. People were supported to maintain their nutrition and hydration needs and had choice over what they ate and drank. Staff worked effectively with outside agencies, such as dietitians, to help meet people’s individual needs and support them to live healthier lives. People’s care was regularly monitored to help lead to good outcomes.

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’s experience confirmed their needs were understood and met. People told us their needs had been assessed to ensure the care they received the right care and support.

Feedback from leaders confirmed people’s needs were assessed and reviewed regularly. The manager told us how people’s needs were assessed regularly.

Processes were in place to ensure staff understood and managed people’s needs. Peoples’ care records evidenced their individual needs had been assessed, in line with the person’s choices and wishes. Assessments were regularly reviewed and up to date. Although care plans contained guidance for staff to follow, information was not always consistent, for example for one person, this related to how often they required repositioning. Care plans contained information on how best to communicate with the person in a way they understood.

People’s experience confirmed they received support which was relevant to their needs and were informed when a referral had been made to external services. One person told us, “Oh yes, I can see the doctor.” People had access to nutritious food and drink. People had choice over what they wanted to eat and drink. People’s feedback about the food was mixed, comments included, “The food is okay,” “The food isn’t great but what can you do” and “I don’t eat much but I love the little sausages! They are the best!”

Feedback from leaders confirmed they knew how to support people in line with their needs, including their nutrition and hydration needs. The manager explained how the monitoring of people’s food and fluid intake had been overhauled since the last assessment. For people with dietary requirements, they explained how they had developed a tool to provide oversight which helped with risk management. This meant people’s intake could be more effectively managed and monitored.

Processes were in place which demonstrated people’s needs had been identified. People’s care records evidenced their needs had been assessed and considered prior to their admission to the service. Where people had specific nutritional needs, for example, a modified diet, this was recorded in their plan of care. People’s dietary notification profiles were kept in the kitchen which detailed included people’s food likes/dislikes, allergies, intolerances and any other special dietary requirements people required.

People’s experience confirmed staff had the relevant information to ensure their care was planned. People were supported to access external appointments as required.

Feedback from staff and leaders confirmed they were involved in people’s care planning and support. The manager was able to describe when referrals were needed to other healthcare providers such as SALT (Speech and language therapy) to enable people to remain safe while living at the home.

Feedback from partners confirmed the service had worked well to address the shortfalls found at the last assessment.

Processes were in place to ensure people were referred to external healthcare professionals when needed. For example, we saw how one person had been referred to the dietitian and another had been referred to the falls team.

People’s experience confirmed they were supported by staff to manage their needs in a way in which they preferred.

Feedback from leaders confirmed people were involved in planning their own care as much as possible. The manager explained for one person who was in a wheelchair, they obtained external physiotherapy treatment, and the person was now walking with the aid of a zimmer frame.

Processes were in place to enable people to make informed decisions around their own well-being needs, were people had the capacity to do so. People were supported to make better and healthier lifestyle choices, for example, staff supported people to make choices to better align with their dietary and nutritional needs.

People’s experienced positive outcomes with regards to their care and support. People told us they were happy living at the home. Comments from people included, “It’s great. I’m happy here” and “I like it here. I chose to come here, this is me time. I want to be here.”

Feedback from staff and leaders confirmed they completed care was monitored daily to help identify any changes in people’s needs.

Processes were in place to ensure peoples outcomes were monitored, and any necessary changes were implemented. Care plans were audited to ensure regular reviews took place and any actions were followed up.

People’s experience confirmed they understood their rights around choosing care and support. Information about care and treatment was provided to people in a way they understood. However, people's care records did not always best evidence this.

Feedback from leaders confirmed that although information was provided to people in a way they understood, so they could make choices, processes did always align to the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). This was because for people who were not able to provide consent and were subject to a DoLS, (Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards) some reapplications had not been made in a timely enough way. The manager confirmed they would make this a priority and began to act on our feedback during the inspection. Staff told us they always asked people for their consent and had a good understanding of the principles of the MCA.

Although processes were in place to help ensure people’s choices, consent and rights around their care and support were respected, they had not always been followed. Some people were being cared for without a DoLS renewal having been made in time. This meant we could not always be assured people’s rights around their consent to care and treatment had been respected.