Cressington Court Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery. We assessed 7 quality statements in the responsive key question. People’s care plans demonstrated people were at the centre of their care and support. However, some additional person-centred information was required to provide improved guidance for staff to follow. People’s care records did not always evidence they were supported to make informed decisions about their future, for example, end-of-life care. We were assured people’s needs were understood by staff. We saw appropriate referrals to external agencies were made as required and people were supported to access external care provision to help ensure good continuity of care, and better outcomes. Information was provided to people in a way in which they understood, and in line with the Accessible information standard. Menus included images to make it easier for people to make choices. People were supported to provide feedback about their care and support; to help ensure they were fully involved about decisions regarding their support. People had regular meetings so their feedback could be captured.

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 experience confirmed they felt involved in planning and making choices about their care and treatment. People told us how they had choices about what gender of staff they preferred for their support. People told us they had choices in how they wanted to spend their day and there was enough for them to do, “They [staff] have things going on here. I sometimes join in,” “We have a singer sometimes and it’s great” and “They have things like Bingo. I just watch.”

Feedback from leaders confirmed people were involved with their care planning and where appropriate, any relatives or significant others. People’s care plans reflected their physical, mental, emotional and social needs, including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. The manager told us, “We treat people as individuals, we know them.”

We observed people being supported by staff in a person-centred way. We saw people engaging in activities of their choosing.

People’s experience confirmed their care was delivered in a way which met their assessed needs. People received consistent care from staff who knew them well.

Feedback from leaders confirmed people received continuity of care from external services. The manager explained how they worked closely with the visiting community matron to ensure people received joined up care. For example, they had worked together to ensure a person received a diagnosis which helped them to access the most appropriate treatment.

Feedback from partners confirmed they had no concerns with care provision provided by the service.

Processes were in place to ensure when people’s care involved external services, it was delivered in a co-ordinated way which met their needs and preferences.

People’s experience confirmed they had access to information and advice that was provided in a way they understood.

Feedback from leaders confirmed people’s individual needs to have information in an accessible were identified, recorded, highlighted and shared. These needs were met and reviewed to support people’s care and treatment in line with the Accessible Information Standard. The manager told us how they could provide care plans or policies in an easy read format. They told us, “When I started here there were no proper menus in place now we have a whiteboard and photos so people can better see the meal choices.”

Processes were in place to ensure people received information in a way they understood. There was an accessible information procedure in place.

People’s experience confirmed they knew how to give feedback about their experiences of care and support including how to raise any concerns or issues. One person told us, “I’d ask anyone if I wasn’t happy.”

Feedback from leaders confirmed they actively listened and involved people. They described how they involved people using effective communication. The manager told us, “We have surveys for people, we have meetings and although we always invite family, they don’t always come. We actively promote our complaints policy and there are whistle blowing information posters on display in the home.”

Processes were in place to ensure people’s voices were heard, and any concerns raised were treated with compassion and as an opportunity to learn. We viewed written minutes which showed people’s feedback had been recorded. However, we were not always able to track how people's responses had been considered by the provider and acted on.

People’s experience confirmed they were able to access care and treatment and any external services.

Feedback from leaders confirmed people were supported to access services in a timely way. The manager explained how they worked in conjunction with the community nurses to ensure people accessed the services they needed.

Feedback from an external partner confirmed they had no concerns with care provision provided by the service.

Processes were in place to ensure people did not experience any barriers in accessing the care and support they required. People’s care records evidenced where people had accessed care from external agencies.

People’s experience confirmed they were provided opportunity to give their views and understand their rights.

Feedback from leaders confirmed that although they had faced some barriers in accessing care for people, they had worked with the community Matron to overcome this.

Processes were in place to help ensure people’s care, treatment and support promoted equality, removed barriers and protected their rights. People’s care was also overseen by the in-house clinical governance team. This helped people access the most appropriate care and support for them.

People’s experience confirmed they felt supported to make choices about their care and plan their future care.

Feedback from leaders confirmed that although people were supported to make decisions about their future care, such as end of life decisions, people found this distressing to talk about.

Although processes were in place to help people plan and make decisions about their future, for example, end of life care, people’s care plans did not always evidence this has been considered. This meant some people’s wishes to ensure their end-of-life care was dignified and pain free was not documented appropriately, meaning there was little guidance for staff to follow. This was particularly important for people with a DNA CPR (Do not attempt resuscitation) direction in place.