Coralyn House

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 service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.

This service scored 46 (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. We found during our assessment that people’s health needs were not always assessed and therefore the provider had failed to ensure people living at the service received the appropriate support. Care plans had been signed by people living at the service, but we did not see evidence of the details of these discussions. Relatives confirmed they were informed if there were any changes with their loved ones, however some relatives told us they were not involved in the care planning process. One relative said, “I am not involved in any care plans.”

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. One person required additional fluids to reduce risk of constipation and urine infections, however. There was no system or process in place to evidence how the service is monitoring this person’s fluid intake to reduce their risk of infection and constipation. Therefore, this put their health needs at an increased risk.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. People were supported with visits from external professionals arranged by staff. However, we found one person had not had a review in 9 years in relation to their eating and drinking needs. One health care professional told us “The providers were very open to answer all of our questions and were person-centred in their approach to the residents.”

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. We saw evidence that people living at the service had access to external professionals such as GP’s and a chiropodist. One health care professional told us “I attend on a 3 monthly basis and the staff encourage the residents to look after their own feet daily.”

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. We found care plans were not always updated with the correct information and care notes were task based and not individualised to people’s needs.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment. The provider had completed some assessments around people’s capacity however, not all activities in people’s lives had been considered and, in some cases, restricting people’s ability to access all areas of the service freely. For example, staff told us they locked the door leading into the conservatory when extreme weather was experienced, however, there was no evidence of a risk assessment or capacity assessments completed where necessary. Therefore, this had not been assessed as a least restrictive option.