Cheshire Springs

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 newly registered service. This key question has been rated 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.

People’s needs were fully assessed before moving into Cheshire Springs. Admissions were planned to ensure the person’s needs could be met. A professional who worked closely with the service told us, “Their referral assessments are thorough and honest and take into consideration compatibility.”

Staff were provided with accurate information about people before they moved into the service. A staff member said, “We have a pre-assessment and so we are aware of people’s needs when they come in.” Staff also confirmed they were given the opportunity to discuss these needs with the management team to ensure a smooth admission for people and to help them settle in quickly.

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.

Risk assessments and care plans reflected professional guidance received about people’s care needs and we observed staff following this guidance when assisting people. For example, staff were knowledgeable about medical conditions and people’s eating and drinking needs and associated risks. This included when people needed a modified diet or required a thickening agent to be added to drinks, because of a known choking risk.

People generally spoke positively about the food available and confirmed they were offered choice based upon their preference. One person told us, “The chef came to see me personally to ask if there is anything I like.” Family members also spoke positively about the food. One commented, “The food is good and varied and the kitchen staff will cater for specific needs and wants.”

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.

Family members told us they felt well informed about people’s care and told us they were kept up to date with any changes. Staff told us they were kept up to date with people’s current and changing needs through care plans which were updated regularly and through daily handover meetings. Referrals were made to other health and social care professionals when needed. Referrals were appropriate and made in a timely manner based on people’s needs. A professional said, “Service users have had good outcomes. Staff are always willing to engage with us whenever needed.”

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 supported people to access health appointments and other health services when needed. Staff encouraged people to enjoy a healthy lifestyle and to improve their physical mobility through diet and exercise. For example, some people had regular physiotherapy input, others participated in exercise activities such as chair yoga. Staff regularly reviewed the impact of physical exercise with people and celebrated achievements such as when people reported a reduction in pain and improved health as a result.

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.

For example, for people at risk of malnutrition, systems were in place to record and monitor food and fluid intake. When people were at risk of pressure wounds, people received appropriate repositioning care to avoid a breakdown in their skin integrity.

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

Decisions were made in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Detailed records were maintained. When a person could consent to care, this was appropriately recorded and reflected through care plans. During our assessment, we observed staff asking and explaining to people prior to any care intervention.