Chilton Care Centre

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 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 care and support needs were assessed prior to them moving to the service. Information gathered was used to create person-centred care plans which clearly set out how people wished to be supported. Where people had specific communication needs, this was accurately recorded.

Care plans were regularly reviewed and updated in consultation with people and where appropriate, their relatives. One person told us, “Yes, they did involve me (in care planning). I am fully involved.”

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 used recognised screening tools, such as malnutrition universal screening tool (MUST), to monitor and maintain people’s health. Where professional guidance had been provided, such as the requirement for special diets, this had been implemented and followed. Kitchen staff had access to up to date information regarding people’s specific dietary requirements.

Mealtimes were a positive experience and staff supported people in a calm and unhurried manner. Menus offered a variety of options for people to choose from and staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s preferences and routines. A person told us, “The food is good. I’ve no complaints.” A relative told us, “The chef comes down to see [person’s name]. They give her choice everyday and they know the things she likes.”

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 worked well together and communicated effectively to ensure people’s needs were met. They had access to information they needed to support people effectively. Where concerns were identified, timely referrals had been made to other professionals such as the falls team. A relative told us, “[Person’s name] feet have swelled. The staff have already contacted the doctor and the nurse is coming tomorrow.”

The registered manager had strong working relationships with external healthcare professionals. This included an advanced nurse practitioner who visited the service weekly to conduct a clinical check on people. This helped ensure people got the support they needed in a timely way. A visiting professional told us, “Nothing is too much trouble when I ask anything of the staff, they always work with me, I have an excellent relationship with all of the staff.”

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.

The registered manager and staff team had a proactive, rather than reactive approach to maintaining people’s health. Staff were skilled at spotting early warning signs of deterioration and seeking swift support for people. For example, one person lost a small amount of weight. Staff immediately increased the person’s weight monitoring to weekly and asked the Advanced Nurse Practitioner to review them on their next visit.

One person had been supported by staff to manage their weight. Healthy eating had been promoted and as a result, the persons mobility had begun to improve.

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.

Where people required additional monitoring due to identified risks, appropriate monitoring forms were in place. This included monitoring of areas such repositioning due to risk with skin breakdown and food and fluid intake. Whilst some monitoring record had been completed thoroughly, records relating to repositioning contained some gaps. We discussed this with the registered manager who told us they would address this with staff.

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

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA, and whether any conditions on authorisations to deprive a person of their liberty had the appropriate legal authority and were being met.

DoLS applications had been submitted to the local authority for authorisation, in line with legal requirements. Where people lacked capacity to make specific decisions, appropriate best interest decisions were recorded.