Cocklebury Farmhouse

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 75 (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.

The provider assessed people’s needs before they started using the service to ensure their needs could be met. Relatives told us the service had worked well to make people’s move to the service a success.

Records demonstrated the assessment process involved several visits to meet a person in their previous home, getting to know the person and working with their previous support team to get a good understanding of their needs. Staff told us they received good information about people’s needs when they first moved into the service. People’s needs were regularly reviewed and support plans were amended where needed.

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 had completed nationally recognised specialist training for people with a learning disability and autistic people. Staff were positive about their training and felt it enabled them to better meet people’s needs. The service had information about people’s specific health conditions from specialist nurses and used these when planning people’s support. This helped to ensure care was planned in line with current best practice guidance. The provider worked with external specialists and the restraint reduction network to review positive behaviour support for people. This had resulted in positive impacts on people's quality of life, with a 92% reduction in incidents of 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 there was good communication amongst the team and we observed staff working together to meet people’s needs.

Social care professionals told us staff and the management team worked well to make sure people’s needs were known and understood by others. Comments included, “There is a strong emphasis on information-sharing and collaboration across teams and with external professionals, supporting joined-up working and reducing the need for individuals and families to repeatedly share their histories” and “There has been good joint working with the community learning disability team. Communication is readily facilitated and the service is always responsive.”

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.

Staff told us they were aware of people’s health needs and had the guidance they needed to provide effective support. Information about people’s health needs was reflected in their support plans. One person’s plan set out how to support a person effectively to attend dental appointments, which they had historically found difficult. Records demonstrated the service had worked with the dentist to visit the surgery prior to the appointment, so the person could meet the surgery staff and become more familiar with the environment. This had resulted in a successful visit, enabling the person to receive effective dental care.

People’s care records demonstrated they had been supported to access relevant health services, including GP, specialist nurses and psychiatry services. Comments from health professionals included, “They reliably attend meetings and support service users to their health appointments without fail” and “They have also taken assertive action when there have been safety concerns, as evidenced by assertive requests for input for a client suffering repeated falls.”

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 maintained records of the care they had provided and observations of people, for example, people’s mobility or details of anxiety and distressed reactions. Records demonstrated changes were shared with health and social care professionals where needed. This approach had resulted in positive impacts on people's quality of life, for example, increased emotional regulation which had enabled a person to reintegrate with their family.

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

At the last inspection we found decisions made in people’s best interests were not always recorded where appropriate. At this inspection we found this had improved. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act and consent. Staff understood the need to follow the best interest decision making process if people lacked capacity to consent to a specific decision. Since the last inspection the management team had reviewed the decision-making process for some people to share bedrooms. Records demonstrated decisions had been made following consultation with people, their relatives, social workers and formal representatives.

During the inspection we observed staff gaining people’s consent before providing any support and when planning what people wanted to do.