Claydon 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

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

This service scored 58 (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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always routinely check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People told us they were often unaware of their care plans and did not feel involved in their development. Relatives told us they had been involved in care planning at the time their family member moved into the service, but there was a lack of ongoing engagement with them in respect of care plan reviews.

Systems were in place to assess people’s needs prior to admission, and the registered manager told us care plans were typically implemented within 48 hours. Care records also demonstrated plans were regularly reviewed and updated to reflect any changes in people’s needs, supporting continuity of care.
 

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

Where the provider had identified people’s risks, using nationally recognised assessment tools these were not always appropriately translated into clear, effective care planning. For example, where people were assessed as being at high risk of pressure damage, care plans did not always include detailed guidance on repositioning timescales. This meant staff did not always have had sufficient information to deliver consistent, evidence-based care. This was raised with the provider, who has subsequently told us they have now acted to address this issue.

Some people experienced delays in receiving their meals due to staff prioritising the medicines round, resulting in some individuals waiting for a long time to receive their food and drinks. This impacted people’s experience, with some observed falling asleep while waiting for their meal.

The provider’s food, when served to people, looked appetising and people told us they enjoyed it. Care plans relating to eating and drinking were generally detailed and reflective of peoples identified needs and any associated risks or specialised diets.
 

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.

The provider had arrangements in place to support partnership working. Appropriate referrals were made when concerns or needs were identified, and healthcare professionals were involved when people first moved into the service. Where people received care from a range of different staff, teams or services, the service worked collaboratively to ensure peoples' needs were met. For example, they worked with the district nursing team where people required additional support with their skin integrity. Care plans included information about delegated healthcare tasks, such as blood glucose monitoring where that was an identified need for a person.
 

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control.

We received mixed feedback from relatives regarding how people's independence was promoted, with some relatives expressing concerns that opportunities to maintain skills and autonomy were missed. For example, some relatives told us their relatives were not actively encouraged to use the toilet, and there being an over reliance on continence wear.

Staff did not always receive appropriate, up-to-date or role-specific training to enable them to provide safe and effective care. Gaps were identified in key areas of staff training and competency, including diabetes awareness and catheter care, which were particularly relevant to meeting the assessed needs of people living at the service who required support with diabetes management and catheter care.

Overall, care plans included details of people’s health conditions and guidance on how to manage these, including when to escalate any concerns. Where people did have specific needs, care plans included information from relevant healthcare professionals, such as, diabetes specialists.
 

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment. However, they did not always involve the person or those important to them in the monitoring and reviewing of their care. This meant the provider missed opportunities to ensure people’s care were provided in line with the persons expectations to achieve positive outcomes.

Systems were in place to monitor aspects of people's day-to-day care and treatment. For example, staff completed records relating to food and fluid intake. Whilst people’s care plans did not clear guide staff on the frequency of repositioning, this was not reflected in the care being delivered. Repositioning records showed consistency and where people’s skin integrity was compromised, appropriate health care advice had been sought.
 

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

People's rights were protected because the provider acted in line with relevant legislation and guidance when obtaining consent to care and treatment. Where people were assessed as lacking the mental capacity to make specific decisions, appropriate Mental Capacity Assessments and Best Interest Decisions had been completed. This helped to ensure decisions were made lawfully and in people's best interests. People and their relatives told us staff sought consent before providing support and respected people's choices about their care.