Chilmington House

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 Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s needs were assessed before admission, and care records highlighted key information such as risks and communication preferences. Support plans were clear, detailed, and person-centred, outlining how staff should support people to meet their needs. Where required, healthcare professionals were involved in assessing needs and providing guidance in line with best practice, which led to good outcomes for people.

People and their relatives told us the provider involved them in the planning and reviewing of their care at regular intervals. One relative said, “[We have] yearly meetings, I am kept fully up to date. If anything changes, they email or contact me directly.”

One external professional said, “I have observed them engage well with a family who were visiting their son.”

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

People received their care and support from staff according to their individually assessed needs and wishes. Managers and staff worked well together to review and update people’s care plans. This meant people’s needs were met in line with recognised best care and practice standards. Staff understood each person’s needs and how these should be met.

People were supported to have enough to eat and drink to maintain their health and well‑being. Staff knew people’s food preferences well and explained how they encouraged and supported individuals to be involved in choosing, planning, and preparing their meals. People made daily decisions about what they ate and drank and when. Any person requiring a modified diet had this adhered to, such as soft food or pureed food. Anyone requiring a SALT (Speech and Language Therapy) assessment had been referred and assessed appropriately.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

People were supported by managers and staff who worked well together with external health and social care professionals. Systems were in place to make sure information was shared in a timely manner by everyone involved in people’s care. This helped to ensure a joined up, consistent approach to delivering safe and effective care to people in line with their individually assessed needs and preferences.

One professional told us, “I have worked with this service for years, and they are easy to contact and always respond in a timely manner. We are currently trying to arrange hydrotherapy sessions for one [person], and I know they will support this fully.”

The provider did not support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People’s care plans failed to mention health screening options to those who should have been offered it, such as breast screening and cervical cancer screening. There was no record of any screening being discussed with the people or their relatives and management told us that it was not considered for those people that should have been offered it. There were no Mental capacity Assessments or advocacy implemented in these circumstances. This could put people at risk of harm.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People experienced positive outcomes from the care and support they received from staff. People’s care and support was regularly reviewed to ensure this was meeting their assessed needs and expected outcomes. Systems were in place to monitor the care and support provided to people to ensure this remained effective.

One person had moved into the service, cared for in bed and had a short life expectancy. Staff worked with other health professionals, made referrals for appropriate equipment and followed professional advice. This person’s quality of life has significantly improved and they are now able to access all areas of the home in an adapted chair. This meant the person has a better quality of life and more positive health outcomes.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff gained consent before providing support to people. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act and how to gain consent. Staff understood the need to follow the best interest decision making process if people lacked capacity to consent to a specific decision. However, records demonstrated these processes had not always been followed where needed. Staff had completed their MCA (Mental Capacity Act) training and people had some MCA documentation in place however, they required reviewing. This was fed back to the registered manager who was responsive to our feedback.