Cheybassa Lodge Rest 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 inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

At the previous assessment the service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment and staffing, the provider had made the required improvements and is no longer in breach of these regulations.

This service scored 71 (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.

People and where appropriate their relatives told us they were involved in developing their care plans. For example, a person told us, “I feel in control of my care, I have regular meetings and can make changes.”

Assessments provided detailed guidance for staff and ensured the care people received was effective and met their individual needs. For example, a person who had diabetes and was also at risk of malnutrition had clear guidelines for staff about the support they required with their health, including their nutrition. Records showed staff were providing a high calorie diet that didn’t contain excessive carbohydrates or starch. This reduced the risk of the person becoming unwell.

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.

Staff demonstrated a robust understanding of dementia. A proactive approach was used to help prevent people becoming distressed and immediately supported people when they began to experience anxiety. This had a positive impact on people’s health and wellbeing. For example, a person used to have medication regularly to prevent them becoming distressed, the provider worked with the GP and reduced the amount of medicine the person was having until the person no longer required it. This reduced the risk of inappropriate medical restraint.

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 they were a good team and worked well together. For example, a staff member said, “The team work well together, we all support and respect each other and have good communication.”

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.

Where required, people’s needs had been reviewed by specialist health teams, including older persons mental health, occupational therapists and speech and language therapists. Staff followed the advice of health professionals and organised reviews as required. This meant people received medical support in a timely way, which decreased the risk of their health deteriorating.

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.

Staff demonstrated they were aware of people’s individual needs and records showed these were being monitored and any changes escalated to the registered manager when required. For example, a person was showing signs of ill health. Staff regularly checked their blood pressure, oxygen levels, body temperature, respiration rate and pulse. Staff were able to describe what action they would take if these were not within the normal range. This meant staff were able to respond quickly and appropriately if the person’s health began to decline.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

Closed circuit television (CCTV) was in use in communal areas of the home; The provider had not always gained people’s consent for this. The provider’s policy and CCTV code of conduct contained some unclear and contradictory information. This included the purpose of the CCTV, how long recordings were stored and who could view the recordings. This was not in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The provider was responsive to our concerns and had begun to update their processes, including the clarity people required to consent.

Where people lacked capacity, we were not assured the service had checked relatives held lasting power of attorney for welfare, before decisions were made. This meant some decisions made by people’s relatives may not have been made in line with legislation.

The provider was responsive to our concerns and was in the process of checking relatives legal status and reviewing people’s capacity assessments.

We observed staff consistently asking for consent before providing any care or support. People told us their choices were respected and they were supported to make decisions about their daily lives.