Carr Croft 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 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 provider did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People and relatives told us they were not always involved in planning care. Care plans and risk assessments were not always consistent and lacked required details. For example, where people were at risk of pressure damage, care plans lacked detail, not giving staff enough information to support people correctly. When people required equipment for safe moving and handling such as a hoist, it wasn’t clearly detailed how staff should use the equipment safely.

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

Although some people’s needs had been assessed, this information was not consistently used to develop clear and effective care plans and some records were contradictory. This meant staff did not always have the guidance they needed to deliver care in line with people’s preferences. The service was not using all clinically recognised tools for assessing people’s needs such as the Waterlow assessment.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. They did not always share their assessment of people’s needs when people moved between different services.

While people living at the service did have access and support from their GP and district nurses as needed, referrals to other teams were not always completed promptly when required. For example, one person who required a referral to the occupational therapist for support with moving and handling had not had this completed. Furthermore, when people had several falls, referrals to the relevant falls team were not always made in response to this.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People who were at risk of poor nutrition did not have robust care plans in place to mitigate these risks. People’s nutritional risk assessments contradicted their care plans, recording a low-level risk despite evidence of weight loss. Where people were at risk of weight loss, there were not always effective recording and monitoring of people’s nutritional and fluid intake by staff. This meant the provider could not always demonstrate that people were receiving the appropriate support to maintain their health and wellbeing.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Systems to monitor and improve outcomes for people were not always effective. Care records did not consistently show people’s health and wellbeing were routinely monitored. There was also a lack of clear information about expected outcomes, which meant it was not always possible to measure whether people’s care and support had been effective. Where people required assistance to reposition themselves, staff did not always support with this as often as required by their care plan.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment. For example, some people were subject to restrictions such as bed rails, where they lacked capacity to consent to the restriction. The provider had not always completed relevant mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions, in line with the Mental Capacity Act.