Charnwood 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 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. Processes also involved assessing compatibility to identify if the service would be able to support people’s needs. The registered manager undertook assessments prior to any admissions which involved the person, their family and professionals involved in their care. This multidisciplinary approach addressed all aspects of the person’s wellbeing, from physical health to their emotional and sensory needs, and ensured consistency and continuity as people moved into the service. Staff developed support plans with people which focused on what was important to them and goals they wanted to achieve.

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. Staff demonstrated they understood best practice. For example, following positive behaviour strategies and personalised care approaches to ensure care, treatment and support reflected best practice guidance. Staff supported people to maintain links with family and friends. A relative told us, “We can come and visit whenever we want to, and staff are always very accommodating with us when we do visit.” A second relative described how staff helped to maintain relationships by arranging to travel with their family member to visit them as travel had become difficult for 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. People’s care plans included their life history and experiences, what and who was important to them and their ambitions and goals. This helped people to tell their story and have their needs met consistently and safely. Staff shared relevant information and worked with external health and social care professionals to ensure people’s needs were understood and their wishes heard. This helped to ensure people had the right support in a timely way.

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 worked with people and health professionals to understand what people needed to stay healthy. For example, one person had been identified as needing more than average sleep time to maintain their cognitive wellbeing. This had been included in their care plan to help them achieve this. People had access to routine and specialist external health and social care professionals when they needed them. People were supported to have food and drinks of their choice whilst staff also encouraged healthier eating by supporting people to plan and shop for their meals. A person told us, “I like the food here. My favourite food is pizza, beans and sausage and I like to go out for a carvery too.” A relative told us, “[Name] loves it here, in particular the food!”

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 worked to achieve significant reductions in crisis situations and the use of restrictive interventions with improved outcomes for people. For example, a staff member described how staff were gradually introducing new experiences and tolerances for a person to reduce their distress whilst improving their quality of life following transition to the service.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Staff received training in and had a good understanding of MCA and applied this. Records showed people’s capacity had been assessed in line with the Mental Capacity Act and staff followed best interest decision processes when needed. DoLS had been applied for where needed, and staff were committed to using the least restrictive options to ensure people’s safety and wellbeing. Where people were not able to verbally communicate their choices, there were individual communication plans in place for staff to follow to support people to make decisions and choices. For example, we saw staff supported a person to plan a shopping trip by using picture cards detailing 3 pictures, of food, then drink and then a shopping trolley, indicating the order of what was going to happen next.