Clifton Manor Residential Home

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.

Assessments of people’s needs were completed before they moved into the home and involved the person and their relatives. Staff described how they supported assessment of people’s changing needs, including contacting health care professionals and involving people and those close to them. Visiting health professionals told us staff were quick to identify changes in people’s needs and kept them updated on people’s progress where required.

Regular reviews of people’s care plans were carried out. Care records and care plan audits were completed by the management team, which showed ongoing oversight of people’s care. For example, people’s weights were monitored and recorded. Where weight loss was identified, this was followed up promptly and referrals were made to the dietitian to explore potential causes and provide appropriate support. This demonstrated the provider had effective systems to assess people’s needs.

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.

The provider followed professional guidance and monitored people’s health needs to support effective care and treatment. Care records included structured guidance for staff on how people should be supported. People at risk of poor nutrition, pressure damage or choking had risk assessments and care plans in place which detailed the support required to reduce these risks. When staff identified changes in a person’s health, they sought advice from GPs and community services and followed the guidance provided.

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 described strong teamwork and felt supported by colleagues across the service. This promoted consistency in care and helped staff respond effectively to people’s needs.

The provider communicated well with other healthcare professionals and shared the information with the rest of the team at the team handover meetings. People met with a team of health professionals regularly to review their health and wellbeing needs.

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.

Staff monitored people’s health and sought appropriate access to health professionals when needed. The provider supported people’s wellbeing by offering a wide range of meaningful activities and encouraging routines that helped people stay engaged. For example, people were supported to access community and other outdoor opportunities, including the use of the garden, which helped promote their wellbeing.

People’s emotional wellbeing was also prioritised. We observed staff interacting with people in a caring and compassionate way, showing empathy and patience.

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.

Staff monitored outcomes linked to people’s health and wellbeing on an ongoing basis. Where staff identified changes in people’s health or wellbeing, referrals to specialist services were made promptly. This helped ensure people received timely support and reduced the risk of deterioration. In one example, staff identified that a change in a person’s health support needs had a positive impact on their wellbeing, reducing distress. Although the original plan was for this support to be temporary, staff observed an improvement and advocated for it to continue, which helped maintain the person’s improved quality of life.

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

Staff recognised the importance of gaining consent before delivering care and support and involved people in decisions as much as possible. People were given information in a way they could understand, helping them make informed choices about their care.

As described in the Safeguarding section of this report, the MCA was understood and followed by staff. We found all staff had received training in MCA and DoLS. The staff we spoke with understood what these were and what this meant for people. Relatives told us staff contacted them when important discussions were needed. We saw staff recognising when people were able to make their own decisions and supporting them to do so.