The Cyder Barn

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 service had a process in place to ensure people had their needs assessed before moving into the service. Areas covered included communication, medication, personal care needs, mobility, cultural and spiritual needs, and social relationships including sexual health and intimate relationships. One relative told us when their loved one moved to the home “[Staff] were aware of [relatives] needs and changed their approach to suit [relative] when they began to feel better, and their needs changed.” One professional told us, “We have found The Cyder Barn to be responsive and collaborative. Together, we work to identify any potential issues or needs, ensuring they are well-prepared to meet the care requirements of those entering their home.”

The registered manager explained a recent assessment and learning they had identified from this including a change to the assessment process.

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’s nutritional and hydration needs were met, and the food received positive feedback. People told us, “There is always a good amount of food and plenty. I am often asked if I want more and always asked what I want to eat” and “I am given plenty to eat and plenty of choice.”

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 and the management team provided us with examples of how they worked with health and social care professionals to support people’s needs, for example GP’s, chiropodists, dentists and district nurses. One professional told us, “We have always had good communications with the manager or senior managers when doing assessments. We always welcome their collaborative approach.”

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.The service used recognised tools to monitor peoples weight, assessing people for risk of malnutrition and acting on any concerns identified. This included implementing fortified diets which the chef was able to explain.

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.The service used recognised tools to monitor peoples weight, assessing people for risk of malnutrition and acting on any concerns identified. This included implementing fortified diets which the chef was able to explain.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.Consent had been gained and recorded in people’s care plans. There was a consent form which included information recorded, liaising with health professionals, taking of photographs, receiving care and support, medication, staff referring with a term of endearment. However, although the form detailed a service user ID, it did not detail the person’s name and there was no date to show when it was completed or reviewed.

When people lacked capacity, appropriate mental capacity assessments and ‘best interests’ decisions were mostly in place. However, mental capacity assessment records did not always evidence how capacity had been assessed, what information had been presented or how the person’s ability to retain the information was assessed. ‘Best interests’ decision records did not always detail others involvement in the decision. We discussed the concerns with the registered manager who addressed them during the assessment.

Throughout our visits we observed people being asked their consent before support was provided. A staff member told us, “We ask before we start personal care, we ask would you like personal care, would you like to choose clothes, would you like a drink, what would you like to drink, we ask little decisions like that.” People made their own choices and decisions on a day to day basis about what they did, what they ate and how they filled their time. One person told us, “They always ask before doing something.”