Chater Lodge

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 62 (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 provider had recently reviewed pre-admission assessment processes to ensure these were sufficiently robust and helped to identify people’s needs, wishes and preferences. Processes had also been developed to identify if the service was able to meet peoples prior to any admission. People, their relatives and relevant agencies were involved and consulted as part of the assessment processes. Staff were provided with information and guidance through handovers and digital care plans. A relative told us, “There were a lot of assessments and meetings before the placement was agreed.”

The provider had systems and processes in place to monitor the weight, food and fluid intake of people and take action where required. However, we found staff did not always follow robust monitoring to ensure, where people had been assessed as at risk from dehydration, they had consumed sufficient fluids each day. Monitoring records were not completed consistently which meant there could not be effective oversight of the risk of dehydration, though there was no evidence people had been harmed as a result of this. Additionally, where people required support to change their position to prevent pressure wounds or to monitor health needs, records did not always evidence support had been provided in line with people’s assessed needs. Following our assessment, the registered manager and provider’s representative took immediate action to review care records and arrange training for all relevant staff. People spoke positively about meal choices. They told us, “I’m happy with the food and I can ask for extra fresh fruit for my room” and “The food is good, I like the choices, and it’s served up nicely.”

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. The provider had systems and processes in place which staff followed to promote effective communication and working with other agencies. Staff described positive, supportive teamwork within the staff team.

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 and relatives described how staff made referrals when people’s needs changed. However, people’s care records were not always updated in a timely way to reflect any changes in the way care and support was provided. People were able to access a range of activities which provided stimulation in addition to access to outdoors spaces and group trips within the local community. However, some people felt that many of the day to day activities were targeted more towards people with higher dependency needs which left them feeling isolated. Activity staff were working to ensure activities were inclusive for everyone.

The provider did not consistently monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. We found inconsistent information in some people’s care plans. For example, one person was described as requiring 3 different levels of fluid thickness within their current care plan. A second person’s care plan had not been updated to reflect important changes in their mobility. We also identified care plans did not always provide sufficient information around the impact of people’s health condition on their outcomes and monitoring needs, including Parkinsons. Although there was no evidence people had been harmed and staff were able to describe people’s current needs, we did observe some inconsistency in staff approaches in supporting a person with their mobility. The registered manager told us they would undertake an immediate review of care plans and ensure accurate information was available on digital care plans. People and relatives were able to describe positive outcomes including arranging appointments and transport so people could attend health services of their choice to maintain their wellbeing.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People and relatives told us staff sought consent before providing care, were supported to make choices and staff respected their decisions. We observed staff respected people’s choices and were receptive when people shared their views and wishes. People’s capacity to make decisions and choices, and the support they needed, had been assessed and recorded in line with the mental capacity act. Care plans contained evidence of consent from people or their representatives where appropriate and best interest processes were followed.