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 changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 63 (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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Care plans and risk assessments which were in place were person centred, detailed and specific to people’s likes, dislikes and preferences. However, we found there were several areas of people’s needs which did not have care plans and risk assessments in place such as for constipation, urinary tract infections and hoarding. Although staff knew people well and escalated health concerns appropriately, this did not fully mitigate the risk arising from incomplete written guidance. The provider responded promptly and ensured the care plans and risk assessments were put in place for the missing areas.

We received positive feedback from health care professionals about how well staff worked with people to meet their needs. One told us, “They manage early transitional challenges well for individuals.” A relative gave praise on how well staff meet a person’s needs by saying, “[Person’s] emotional, physical and healthcare needs are all met with the utmost care, attention, respect and consideration.”

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

People were involved in developing and reviewing their care plans, so their support matched their needs and choices. Staff provided personalised care and worked with healthcare professionals to support people’s health and wellbeing. We found the provider was working within the guidance, ‘Right support, right care, right culture’.

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.

Staff told us, and we saw evidence, that there was good communication with handovers and regular staff meetings where people were discussed. Staff told us, “We have regular team meetings. These meetings are useful to discuss resident’s care, resident’s development, etc. Moreover, regular team meetings improve communication, teamwork and quality of care.”

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.

People had choice in how they spent their time. Staff supported people to develop independence skills and involved them in the running of the home. Activities provided meaningful experiences to people which supported their health and wellbeing.

People received routine health checks from the dentist, chiropodist, optician and GP, with referrals being made in a timely manner to ensure people received the care when they needed it. Health care professionals told us of the positive experience they had in visiting the service. They said, “The carers were responsive when we sought additional information about the referral and it was easy to arrange an assessment visit with them. At the visit the manager and the deputy manager were present. They were knowledgeable about the person and were professional and responsive to recommendations and advice.”

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

People’s care records reflected good practice and guided staff to deliver safe support and care. However, although staff knew people well and raised any concerns they had regarding a person’s health, including constipation, there was limited recording of daily monitoring for such things as bowels and hydration. However, we did not find any impact of this and found the provider responsive, and recording was immediately put in place.

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

Peoples’ capacity to make certain decisions was assessed in most instances. Assessments in place were person centred and were very detailed in what steps were taken. Appropriate consultation had taken place with relevant people and professionals as part of any decision making, where people lacked capacity ensuring these were made in the person’s best interest. However, not all areas of decision making had capacity assessments in place, this was due to a more robust system and paperwork being implemented to ensure the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 was adhered to. This was part of improvements to the governance system and there was a quality assurance action plan in place to ensure remaining assessments were completed.

Staff understood the principles of the MCA and supported people to make choices about their daily care. Care plans included people’s communication needs and preferences.