Clarkson House Residential Care 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (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.

People’s needs were assessed and a variety of risk assessments were in place. People’s needs were generally monitored and reveiwed regularly. Further work was underway to ensure a review of assessments were being completed accurately.

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 had systems for checks to ensure people were safe. People and families said with the support of staff their health was improving. One person commented, “[Family member] needs have changed because they have a much better weight now and they are more independent.” We noted suitable equipment was in place to reduce people’s risk and care plans contained guidance for staff on how to meet people’s needs. However, we noted that some improvements were needed to the records to reflect that people were receiving the correct care. We found some shortfalls in records relating to fluid and diet intake, records of repositioning and records of personal care. The registered manager had identified these shortfalls and work was ongoing to improve record keeping.

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 had good working relationships with other professionals and we noted that appropriate referrals were made where additional needs were developed. There were good working relationships with other healthcare professionals and we observed staff clearly knew people well.

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 spoke positively about how they were supported. One person commented, “They weigh me regularly and check that I am drinking enough, which is good.” Another person commented, “Staff are patient and assist me to walk as much as possible to encourage my independence.”

Improvements to records were needed to ensure action around encouraging healthy diets and fluids were reflected to demonstrate appropriate care was delivered. People spoke positively about the food with one person commenting, “We have fresh fruit and salad here which are healthy.”

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 andconsistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Systems were in place to ensure people were receiving the care they needed. However, records were not always effectively maintained. This meant we could not be certain there was sufficient oversight, for example in relation to fluid intake, to ensure people had enough to drink where a target had been set. We found no evidence of any harm and the registered manager had identified this shortfall and was looking at how to ensure staff accurately recorded people’s fluid intake for example.

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

Staff generally asked consent before providing support to people and people were happy with how they were supported. Where people lacked capacity there were clear systems in place to assess this and ensure decisions were made in people’s best interest. However, there was some inconsistency in what decisions were assessed using mental capacity assessments. Mental capacity assessments showed assessments were made in line with the requirements of the mental capacity act and best interest decisions were made with the involvement of appropriate people. People told us staff always asked for consent before providing support.