Christ the King, Footherley Hall

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 remained requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

The provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to consent.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The registered manager carried out pre-admission assessments. These assessments considered people’s health and wellbeing, and communication needs, with the aim to inform personalised care planning.

However, the process for updating these plans was not consistently thorough, resulting in some information not being kept as current or comprehensive as required. This could lead to people not receiving the care and support they required in a safe way.

The management team did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

Care plans required further development to ensure they comprehensively reflected people's individual care needs. In some cases, key information was missing or not sufficiently detailed, which limited staff’s ability to deliver consistent, person-centred care.

Although staff generally worked well together and demonstrated positive teamwork, this was not always reflected in the effective sharing and recording of information. There were inconsistencies in how staff communicated people’s care needs and documented accidents and incidents. These gaps in information sharing and record-keeping limited the service’s ability to ensure continuity of care and respond appropriately to emerging risks.

However, the local GP had commended the managers and staff for their hard work and said they would recommend the home as a nice place to live.

While people had access to relevant resources and healthcare professionals to support healthier lifestyles, the effectiveness of this support was limited by inconsistent information sharing. As a result, people’s needs were not always clearly understood or communicated, which reduced the opportunity to fully optimise their care and wellbeing.

The management team were not always able to effectively monitor people’s care and treatment to drive continuous improvement. This was due in part to the lack of consistently up-to-date information, which limited their ability to evaluate progress and outcomes accurately.

Although staff supported people with day-to-day decisions, mental capacity assessments were not completed in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. In some cases, assessments lacked sufficient detail or were not clearly linked to specific decisions. This meant the principles of the MCA were not consistently applied, and there was limited assurance that people’s rights, choices, and best interests were being fully considered and protected in decision-making processes.