Courtland Lodge

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.

The registered manager or deputy manager completed the initial assessment. Senior care staff reviewed and updated people’s care plans monthly.

People’s relatives confirmed they were involved in reviews of their care. A relative said, “Yes, we are always kept updated and able to get involved in requesting any additional care/ medical input when needed.” Another relative told us, “I’ve been involved when anything happens or changes. I’ve also had more formal reviews with 1 or more of the staff as necessary.”

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

People’s hydration needs were not always met. We reviewed care records from before our visit and found people were not always offered enough to drink. During our visit we observed staff encouraging people in communal areas with drinks and saw they arranged something to eat for a person who had got up later. Staff told us, “We report to seniors when people have not eaten enough. We try to push fluids/foods. The protocol is we monitor all day then handover. Always handover as need be for the GP”. Staff further told us, “We look at everything, could be an issue with teeth for example.”

Staff gave people choices and alternatives were available if they changed their mind. A staff member told us, “I can accommodate changes in menu. Like boiled egg, bacon, or fried eggs, we can accommodate changes to the menu to suit people, some people forget what they ordered so we work around it.” We discussed actions taken in a heat wave and were told by staff, “We adjust the menu, the menu comes from head office so when it is hot desert like pears cooked, we change it locally. So, if it is casserole, we change to salad.”

People’s care plans detailed any specific dietary requirements, and they gave positive feedback about the food. A person said, “I get plenty to eat and to drink, we get a card with all the meals on it, and we mark off which we want.” Another person told us, “The food here is okay, I would call it standard food but if you say, ‘I’m not eating that’ they will sort you out and get you something else.” We were also told, “I like traditional food, they give me a nice choice. They used to have a lot of tuna, and they gave me salmon and I enjoy this. They are accommodating.”

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 handovers were completed to share updates and staff had access to information they needed to provide care via electronic devices.

People’s relatives felt communication with the home was good. A relative told us, “There's an open door should I have any concerns and [registered manager] and [their] team keep me informed with excellent communication.”

A professional told us, “The staff meet thephysical needs well for the patients that we have and this is personalised to the individual patient. Forexample, if we recommend a repositioning regime this is facilitated.”

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’s records showed they were referred to other services, such as district nurses as required. A relative told us, “[Person] is physically healthier than they’ve been for probably the last decade. Mentally, they’ve managed to involve [person] in activities a number of times.”

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 were supported to maintain a good quality of life. The registered manager gathered information about what people enjoyed doing before they were admitted to the service and monitored this when they moved in. The registered manager told us, “I do walkarounds and talk to residents and staff. I make sure we can provide things for people’s interests. I have a meeting with residents.” They gave examples which included a ‘24 trips in 24’ project following feedback from people who wanted to go out more following the pandemic. “We talk to residents who have capacity, so they tell us. People who lack [mental] capacity you can still see their wellbeing, for example [Person] helps us to set up activities, setting tables, quite a few [people] do if they like it.”

A professional told us, “We believe that our patients are supported to have the best quality of life they can here. There are frequent social activities for them to participate in and often when we visit the residents can be found in lounges socialising and engaging with others rather than in their rooms.”

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

People’s records included mental capacity assessments. Where people were assessed as lacking capacity and decisions were made in their best interests, we saw evidence of discussions held with people. Deprivation of liberty safeguard applications were made where required.

Staff received training in the mental capacity act and deprivation of liberty safeguards. They understood about gaining consent before providing care. A staff member described their approach of someone refused support with personal care. They told us, “I would give them time, come away go back talk to them. See if they respond to someone else.”