Burnt Tree Croft

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. One relative told us, “We are always asked and involved in [relatives] care plan.” Another relative told us, “They always update me with any changes, I always feel in the know.” Care records were person centred and there was evidence of appropriate action being taken when changes to people’s health had been noted. One staff member told us, “We make a list of any concerns for people and share these at the weekly GP round. Any updates are then fed back to staff. We work well as a team in sharing information.” Staff told us daily handovers were effective in keeping them up to date with any changes to people’s care. One person at the service told us, “They [staff] always keep the doctor updated on how I am.”

People’s health needs and clinical observations were not always completed in line with current guidelines. Whilst we found no harm to people. We found conflicting information on fluid and food intake records for one person. Fluid intake was recorded, could not be evidenced action was being taken when agreed targets had not been met, increasing the risk of dehydration for this person.

People received monthly monitoring of their weight, to ensure peoples nutritional risk was monitored. However, we made a recommendation, to ensure staff reviewed longer periods of time in relation to people’s weight. There was a variety of balanced meals on offer. However, we received mixed feedback from people about the quality of food. One relative told us, “[Relative] loves the food. It is home-made. [relative] had previously lost weight when living at home. They know what encourages him to eat at breakfast and they will make this for him specifically.” However, other people commented that the food could be cold at times and told us, “Meals could be warmer.” We found kitchen staff were knowledgeable about people’s specific dietary needs, and how to meet them.

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 were positive about the service and their ability to assess, plan and deliver peoples care and support in a collaborative way. One professional told us, “I have a positive working relationship with the managers and team leaders. They communicate with me well.” Another professional told us, “Staff have good knowledge on the residents that they care for, they know about their health, needs and are responsive when we ask them for information."

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 had access to health care professionals when required. The service involved people in regularly reviewing their health and wellbeing needs to prevent deterioration.People at the service told us staff gave them the time to be as independent as possible and that they didn’t feel rushed. One person told us, “Staff help me if I need it, but they know I like my independence." One staff member was seen asking a person to help set the table for dinner service. This staff member told us, “We want them to live as independently as possible, enabling them to do things for themselves.”

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. Some staff lacked knowledge about clinical monitoring tools, such as monitoring malnutrition and dehydration, and managing emerging behaviours. We could not be assured people’s needs were always accurately monitored, or concerns were escalated to professionals in a timely manner.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People’s wishes and views were considered when their care was planned and people’s care plans detailed a person’s capacity, ability to consent and make decisions. Staff understood the importance of obtaining consent before delivering care and had received up to date training around the Mental Capacity Act (MCA).