Churchfield Court

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 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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Staff and the management team confirmed that people’s needs were assessed prior to them moving into the home. Staff shared examples with us of how they had spent time with people and, where appropriate, their relatives, to gather essential information about people’s needs and preferences. The management team regularly reviewed people’s needs to ensure care plans and risk assessments were reflective of people’s current requirements.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. However, they did not always do this in line with current evidence-based good practice and standards. Some people living at the home had learning disabilities or mental health needs. The provider had not always ensured staff were trained to meet these specific needs. For example, one person with a learning disability had specific communication needs. The management team had not followed best practice guidance to assess these needs and develop clear and consistent ways to support the person’s communication. Similarly, guidance had not been applied about how 1 person’s mental health needs could be met.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. Systems had been established to ensure staff shared relevant information that was important to people’s care and support needs. Communication between staff and other professionals involved in people’s care was good. A visiting healthcare professional told us staff followed any advice or instructions they gave about people’s health care. They told us staff knew people well and shared information with them when they visited the home, such as changes in people’s health or any concerns noted by the staff team.

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.

People told us staff listened to them when they reported changes in their health. One person told us, “Staff help me with my health. I’ve recently had my cataracts done. That helps me lots.” Staff recorded information about people’s health and sought advice from local healthcare teams. People we spoke with told us staff arranged for them to see a GP if they were unwell. People’s care plans were updated to reflect any changes in people’s needs, risks or medicines.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and

consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. Care plans did not contain information for staff about clinical or quality of life outcomes that people wanted to achieve. This meant it was difficult to monitor outcomes for people.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People told us they were supported to make their own decisions. One person said, “I make my own choices. I get my own clothes out the night before so I choose what to wear.”

Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of how to support people with decision making and had received training in the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). They were able to share examples with us about how they ensured people consented to the care they provided. This included using both verbal and no verbal communication. For example, signing or reading body language. The management team had assessed people’s capacity to make decisions, and the outcome of these assessments was recorded in people’s care plans to offer guidance to staff about how best to support people.