Cary Brook

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 management team made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People's needs were assessed before they moved to the home to ensure staff understood their needs and preferences. Assessments contained information about people's care needs, care preferences, preferred times of care, any religious or cultural beliefs and their personal relationships. Each of these assessments helped form the person’s care plan. Care staff told us care plans gave them the information they needed to support people effectively.

People and/or their relatives had the opportunity to visit the home prior to moving in to ensure it was the right place for them to live. One relative told us, “We looked at 11 other homes; none of them felt quite right. As soon as we walked in here, we liked it. [The registered manager] and [deputy manager] met us when we came to look around and just knew so much about mum already. It was clear they had read all about her. We made our decision quite quickly during the visit. We are so happy we chose Cary Brook."

The management team 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.

Staff were aware of the need to involve people in all aspects of their care and ensured they met their assessed needs. Staff understood each person's care needs. Staff told us people's care plans were kept up to date, included their current needs, how these were to be met and desired outcomes. One staff member said, “Yes, we are told about people’s specific needs. Care plans are there, and I see them. If we don’t know something we will check.”

Staff told us they ensured people were supported by other health care professionals when necessary. The home specialised in caring for people living with dementia. One relative told us, “[Their family member] has late stages of dementia and he seems so happy at Cary Brook; the staff are amazing with him.”

Nationally recognised assessment tools had been used to assess people’s needs in relation to the risk of pressure damage to their skin, eating and drinking and the risk of choking. We noted no person at the home had any pressure damage to their skin.

People chose what they wanted to eat and drink. People were shown plated meals if they needed help deciding. If people did not want any of the meal choices, staff were perfectly happy to make them something else.

Some people ate and drank independently; others needed support. The home operated a ‘protected mealtime’ system. This meant all staff in the home assisted at mealtimes, including the registered manager and deputy manager. This helped to ensure mealtimes were a relaxed, sociable occasion. People could choose to eat in the main dining room or in their own room. One person had lunch with their relatives on the first day we visited. Staff had arranged a quiet area so they could eat together as a family. Their relative told us, “We are having lunch with [name] today. They [staff] set up a small table for us so all 3 of us can eat together, which is really nice.”

There were additional snacks and drinks available to people in lounges. This meant people could help themselves or with the support of staff.

The management team 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.

A member of the management team completed an assessment prior to people being offered care to ensure they could meet the person's needs safely and effectively. One relative said, “[Name] had an assessment before coming here and we have access through the relative’s portal to the electronic care plan and daily records.” If a decision was reached to provide care, a care plan and risk assessments were developed, put in place and a moving in date agreed.

Staff worked closely with the person, their family members and other care professionals to ensure people received safe and effective care and good practice guidelines were followed.

The management team 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.

One relative told us, “The care here is excellent. I can tell you [name] would no longer be with us if it wasn't for the excellent care he has here. The staff picked up there was something not quite right with him a while ago and they were on it immediately.”

Staff said they supported and encouraged people to be as independent as possible. People had varying levels of needs and abilities. Observations showed staff ensured people were not restricted, and people were free to move around the home as they wished. There were regular activities to support people’s mental and physical health and mobility, such as gentle exercise sessions. One relative said, “Staff and resident interaction is very good and plenty of activities are provided.”

Staff liaised with external health and social care professionals to ensure people received consistent care and support. Preventative medicines were encouraged. People had the choice to be vaccinated if they wished to. Staff made sure this was organised for people who chose this option.

The management team 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 said they were well cared for. Relatives felt the quality of care was very good and led to good outcomes for people. One relative said, “We are very pleased that our relative is being so well cared for.” Should people’s care needs change over time, care was adapted to meet those needs. One relative said, “[Name’s] needs have increased a little now, but they have been able to adapt to this, and it isn’t a problem.”

Records were in place to monitor people’s care needs were being met. These were audited to ensure people received the right care at the right time. Audits also picked up any changes in people’s needs or health conditions which staff may need to respond to. This ensured any changes would be addressed promptly.

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

People/relatives said people’s rights were respected and staff always sought consent before providing any care. We saw staff asked people if they needed care and often used gentle encouragement if this was needed. Staff never forced people to do things they did not wish to do. One staff member said, “I ask people for permission and offer them choices. If people refuse, we leave and come back. We do not force [people to do things they do not wish to do].” Another staff member told us, “I always give choices and options. If people refuse, we leave and come back, we do not force.”

There were systems in place to ensure people consented to their care, if they had capacity to do so, and to ensure the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) were followed when people lacked capacity to make decisions about their care. Details of others involved in people's care, who could support with decision making or advocate on their behalf, were included in people’s care records. Records showed the right people were consulted when a decision needed to be made for an individual who lacked capacity to make the decision themselves.