South Chowdene

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 the last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. The provider did not always ensure the electronic care record system supported staff to show they had effectively assessed and reviewed people’s needs. We found gaps in care records and assessment templates that did not support staff to capture accurate and complete information. The standard template used across all services lacked flexibility for short-term or respite admissions, meaning full documentation was often incomplete before people’s needs changed or they passed away. Drop-down boxes within the electronic system did not assist staff to provide detailed, person-centred information. One staff member said, “I’m not fully aware of how care plans are developed. I don’t feel involved.” The registered manager took immediate action to review and update care records during the inspection.

Staff planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They worked to develop evidence-based good practice and standards. Staff had received mandatory and condition-specific training, and professionals confirmed improvements in care delivery. A community nurse practitioner told us, “We have seen a significant improvement in the last six months – better communication and safer care.” People’s nutrition and hydration needs were met, and staff demonstrated good knowledge of preferences. Menu reviews involved people, and staff adapted choices despite budget constraints.

The service 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 worked well with professionals and families to ensure people received coordinated care. Visiting professionals praised staff knowledge and engagement during GP ward rounds, noting improved communication since permanent staff were recruited. Relatives described staff as approachable and responsive, and most staff reported feeling supported by colleagues and the new management team. One nurse said, “We work very closely with the manager and the team; everyone is involved.”

Staff 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 were supported to maintain and improve their health and wellbeing. People were supported to maintain their health and wellbeing. Staff worked with healthcare professionals to address changes in conditions promptly and supported people with dietary needs, including diabetes management and allergies. Relatives told us medical concerns were handled effectively and praised staff for their responsiveness.

The management team monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. The management team monitored care through audits and reviews, and staff understood the importance of learning from incidents. They aimed to ensure individual’s outcomes fully met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. Staff were aware of people’s goals and supported them to achieve better health and wellbeing. They were involved in themed supervision to improve practice in areas such as communication and pressure area care. However, governance systems were not always effective in identifying risks promptly. For example, staffing levels did not always reflect the complex needs of people within the service. The new management team demonstrated commitment to improvement and had begun reviewing care records and training delivery to address gaps.

Staff told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. We observed staff seeking consent during care interactions, and people told us their preferences were respected. Staff described involving families in best-interest decisions. Staff had received training on the Mental Capacity Act 2005, but this was not always applied in practice. Care records showed people were sometimes deemed to lack capacity without appropriate assessment, which was not in line with legislation. The registered manager took immediate action to review and correct capacity assessments.