Chelmsford Care Centre Ltd

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.

Leaders and staff ensured that people’s care and treatment remained effective by regularly assessing and reviewing their health, wellbeing, and communication needs in partnership with them. Although the service was not accepting new admissions at the time of our visit, the manager demonstrated a clear understanding of the admissions process and emphasised the importance of conducting face-to-face assessments prior to any new admission.

Care plans reviewed during the assessment showed that monthly updates were consistently carried out, with information amended as needed to reflect changes in people’s needs. Staff confirmed they were kept informed of individuals’ current and evolving needs through detailed care plans and daily handover meetings.

People and their relatives expressed overall satisfaction with the care and support provided, including the food and drink options available. Feedback was generally positive, with one relative commenting, “I think the food here is well balanced, and [person] usually eats well. If they don’t like something, staff offer alternatives, and they usually finish their meal.” Another person shared, “It’s lunchtime now and the food is generally good. I eat in my room, but sometimes I go to the dining room.”

During our visit, we observed a mealtime experience that was largely positive. Meals appeared hot, and people were offered a choice of hot and cold drinks, which were regularly topped up. The chef was present in the dining room, serving meals directly. Staff were attentive, covering meals when individuals temporarily left the table, and providing support at each table where needed. People were not rushed, and staff worked at their pace.

We observed compassionate and encouraging interactions, such as a staff member gently supporting a person who initially appeared disengaged. Through calm and gentle communication and encouragement, the person became more responsive and independently drank their coffee by the end of the meal. Another staff member encouraged a reluctant individual to join the dining room by personally inviting them and referencing a homemade meal. The staff member sat beside the person, offering reassurance and support, which resulted in the person eating most of their meal.

However, we also observed an instance where a staff member used inappropriate language and body language when assisting a person, which did not reflect the overall positive approach seen elsewhere. We shared this feedback with the manager, who responded promptly by implementing a group supervision session focused on enhancing communication during mealtimes and care. The manager explained, “The focus was on improving communication practices during support, using practical scenario-based exercises to reinforce positive approaches.”

Care plans reflected input from external professionals, with evidence of timely referrals to dietitians for individuals experiencing weight loss and to speech and language therapists for those requiring modified diets. Professional guidance was clearly documented for staff to follow. Systems were in place to monitor and review daily care records, including nutritional and hydration needs, ensuring people received appropriate and responsive support.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. The service used an electronic system which integrated with GP systems, supporting continuity and coordination of care. We saw evidence of timely referrals to external healthcare professionals to ensure people received holistic and person-centred support.

One professional told us that staff made referrals promptly and were supportive and well-prepared during their visits to the home.

Daily flash meetings were held with department leads, alongside weekly clinical meetings, enabling the early identification of any issues or concerns and ensuring timely and appropriate action was taken.

We observed staff actively supporting people to maintain their independence and make choices about their daily routines. Some individuals had one-to-one support, enabling them to move safely and freely around the home. Staff spoke with warmth and compassion about those they cared for and demonstrated a strong understanding of each person’s medical history and care needs. Interactions between staff and people were positive and respectful, with staff making eye contact, listening attentively, and engaging meaningfully.

Leaders and staff routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Monitoring records showed that people received care in line with their assessed needs. Individuals with compromised tissue viability were repositioned regularly to reduce the risk of pressure damage. Hydration and nutritional care was delivered in accordance with each person’s risk assessment, with specialist dietary requirements and fluid intake actively monitored and supported.

Leaders and staff 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, whether appropriate legal authorisations were in place when needed to deprive a person of their liberty, and whether any conditions relating to those authorisations were being met. Individuals’ capacity and ability to consent were carefully considered, and where appropriate, they or someone legally authorised to act on their behalf were actively involved in planning, managing, and reviewing their care and treatment.

Care plans clearly documented consent to care. In cases where people lacked capacity to make specific decisions, mental capacity assessments were completed, and best interest decisions were recorded in accordance with legal requirements. During the assessment, we consistently observed staff seeking consent before delivering care, administering medication, and supporting individuals during mealtimes.

Staff received regular training and demonstrated a clear understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). One staff member explained, “We carry out MCA assessments when we suspect someone may lack capacity. We avoid generalising, as individuals may have capacity in some areas. Our aim is always to act in their best interests.”