Cornerstone Professional Care Ltd

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.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been Good

Good: This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 67 (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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always write detailed care plans that staff could follow to ensure that effective care was provided.

We saw that some care and pre- assessment plans were basic with very little information to support staff in understanding people’s needs. For example, a care plan stated that the person had difficulty walking without a detailed outline of what the difficulties were, and any support staff should give. However, staff knew people well and told us that when they first met someone, they always asked what needs they had and how they could provide care safely. One staff member said, “The care plans can’t beat a good conversation with people so that I can really understand what their needs are.”. A person told us, “They know me so well. They make sure I decide what care I need and don’t try to force me to do anything I don’t want to or that is bad for me. They follow up on things so thoroughly. It’s better with this company as they have the same staff coming all the time so I don’t need to explain myself to new people all the time.”

Not all people’s families had been involved in care plan reviews. A relative told us, “The staff understand [person’s name] needs so well. The staff are always looking for positive things to support them with, so I guess that it’s not a big deal if I don’t get invited to all reviews as I am updated quite regularly.”

The registered manager updated care plans and risk assessments during our inspection and we saw that they were of a far better quality with detailed instructions for care staff.

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.

Systems were in place to ensure staff were up to date with evidence-based guidance and legislation. Care records demonstrated care was provided in line with current guidance, such as ensuring people who needed them had speech and language therapy reports (SALT). The provider used advice and guidance from external professionals, such as medical experts and social workers to make sure people were provided with the correct level of care and support.

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.

Staff had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan, and deliver people’s care, treatment, and support. Partner services were well informed of people’s needs and support mechanisms. One health professional told us, “The registered manager makes sure that any updates on health issues are immediately passed on.”. A family member told us, “The staff are amazing. Even when they go on leave, they make sure to tell us in advance”.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff did not cook meals for people, however understood people’s cultural, dietary and religious needs. They heated meals prepared by family or bought by the person according to safety instructions and understood food hygiene guidance. They also noted the types of food people ate for the registered manager to make suggestions to families and healthy eating during care planning discussions.

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

Reviews were timely and included updates when people’s needs changed or if an incident occurred. However, these reviews were not detailed with very little substance to them. An example would be ‘[name of person] needs more support during eating’ without providing material instructions on what support to provide. However, staff knew people well and were already providing the levels of support required. The registered manager updated review documentation with more detail so that new or agency staff would be able to provide appropriate levels of support.

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

The service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). Staff understood people’s capacity to make decisions about their care and support.

People confirmed this, saying “I make my own choices, staff always knock on the door and always ask me if I want something done like washing.” Staff understood and applied legislation relating to consent. Capacity and consent were clearly recorded in care plans.

Where people’s capacity to make certain decisions fluctuated, we saw assessments were specific to those questions. Best interest decisions were made with family and external professionals.