Conifer 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 75 (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 management team completed thorough assessments with people before they were admitted to the service. The registered manager told us, “It’s not just about whether we can meet people’s needs, it is also about whether they are the right fit for the home and people already living here. We make sure everyone is going to remain safe”.

Care plans documented people’s needs in a good level of detail. Staff were aware of people’s needs and how best to meet these. For example, one person required support with catheter care and there was detailed guidance for staff to follow in their care plan.

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 had been referred to appropriate services when required. For example, the speech and language therapy (SALT) team. Staff used the guidance from this team, alongside nationally recognised tools to ensure people were supported correctly with their eating and drinking needs. The kitchen staff also demonstrated a strong knowledge of these. We observed staff following good practice guidance during the lunchtime to support people eat food which was suitable to meet their needs. They did this discreetly to ensure the person’s safety but so they could still join in with the social aspect of the lunch. People’s weight was consistently monitored, and any concerns were flagged to the appropriate agencies for action to be taken.

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.

Professionals had been suitably contacted to support with assessing, reviewing and meeting people’s needs. This included support from the mental health team, local GP surgery and adult social care teams. Staff were knowledgeable about the advice they had been given and spoke with confidence in contacting external professionals as needed. One professional told us, “I have always found them all to be very responsive in communication and they are very good at reporting any concerns.”

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 they were supported to contact other health professionals if they needed to, they were also supported to attend appointments where needed. One person was supported to attend an appointment on the day of the inspection, they returned in a positive mood. Relatives spoke positively about their loved ones access to health appointments where needed. One said, “They get the doctor in if needed, I think [person] is seen quite often anyway, just to keep an eye. [Staff] are good at that.”

Healthcare professionals told us that staff were proactive in sending referrals and felt confident that their advice was followed to support people to live healthier lives.

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.

Each person was allocated a keyworker, who worked closely with them to build rapport and formulate goals that each person wanted to work towards. This was specifically documented, separately to daily notes, so people could keep track of the progress they were making. A relative told us, “Staff have supported [person] to settle well, they keep encouraging them to do more and more, it is slow going, but they are doing more. They have come a long way since they moved in.” Staff were creative in their approach with supporting people and had linked them in with other agencies where appropriate to achieve positive outcomes.

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

People were involved in decision making about all aspects of their care. Where they did not have capacity to make a decision, the relevant representatives had been involved. Staff demonstrated a good knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and applied this to their daily practice. We saw people being given choices throughout the inspection visit. Any decisions made were clearly documented in people’s care plans, alongside robust capacity assessments that had been undertaken.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Systems were in place to monitor those who needed a DoLS in place, to ensure these remained up to date and valid. Some people had very specific conditions in place as part of their DoLS. Measures were evident to enable these conditions to be met.