Castor Lodge 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.

This is the first assessment for this registered service. This key question has been rated good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

We observed staff working well as a team and with external professionals. People and relatives we spoke with told us they were involved in discussions around their care.

However, we found care plans missing important information in relation to end of life care wishes, needs and preferences.

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 service did not remove historical information in people’s care plans which made them unclear. This included important information regarding people’s moving and handling needs. Care plans were missing important information in relation to end of life wishes, needs and preferences. Clinical assessment tools were used to monitor people’s needs however, care plans were inaccurate as to people’s current clinical status and risk level. This put people at risk of harm. The provider had identified the need for care plans to be reviewed and had developed an action plan to improve the service.

Daily records did not always reflect that care had been provided in line with the person’s care plan and guidance from the Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) team.

However, we observed a multi-disciplinary meeting which demonstrated staff knew people’s needs well and were able to provide requested information to health care professionals. Feedback from a health care professional was that staff were happy to learn and work with them.

Staff told us the process of completing a pre-admission assessment and gathering important information to ensure they could meet the person’s needs.

Care plans included a pre-admission assessment, consent forms, life history and personal preferences. We saw evidence that when there were concerns regarding nutrition and hydration that appropriate action was taken.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people.

We observed staff working well as a team and with external professionals. Staff told us they were a supportive team that helped each other. Staff told us they felt there were effective communication systems in place for example the daily handover meetings. Staff told us they had good relationships with other professionals.

People we spoke with were confident that staff shared appropriate information with other services when required. For example, relatives told us how the service had contacted the GP when staff had identified their family member’s health was deteriorating.

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.

Activities provided at the home included exercises and we observed wellbeing staff engaging people in active games and dancing.

People and relatives we spoke with told us they were involved in discussions about their care, their independence was promoted, and referrals were made to health professionals when required.

The service discussed changes in people’s health needs in daily meetings and there was evidence that staff supported people to access different services when required.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it.

The service failed to ensure people’s care plans were updated to reflect any changes in their care needs. This made it difficult to monitor outcomes.

However, people reported positive outcomes since moving to the home with 1 relative telling us it had given their family member “a new lease of life”. Another relative told us how well the care home staff worked together with everyone involved in their family member’s care. People told us they still had their independence since moving into the care home.

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

People told us that staff asked their permission and talked them through the support they were providing. People were provided with information on local and national advocacy services. Staff could explain the importance of consent. We saw evidence that people or their legal representatives had consented to the care and treatment detailed in their care plan. Daily records stated whether staff had obtained consent to provide care when supporting people with their personal care needs.