Stratton Court

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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Good.

Good: This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 67 (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.

Initial assessments were holistic and person-centred. People and their relatives confirmed they had been involved in the process prior to admission, with people’s needs assessed at the time. A range of assessment tools were used to understand each person’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs, supporting the design of care delivery aimed at achieving positive outcomes.

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’s nutritional and hydration needs were detailed in their care plans and information was held in the kitchen detailing peoples specific dietary needs. Records were in place showing where a person required support with dietary needs and had improved since the last inspection.

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.

Plans for transition, referral, and discharge considered people’s individual circumstances and expected outcomes. Feedback from external professionals was mixed. Some told us they had a good working relationship with the service and praised the registered manager for improvements made recently. However, other external organisations reported poor communication which we found led to the service having a poor reputation with some of these organisations. The registered manager and the senior nurses were supported by regular multidisciplinary meetings that promoted joined-up working, however CQC received frequent feedback the service was failing to meet expectations and there were high numbers of safeguarding concerns being raised over recent months. For example, partner agencies gave CQC feedback regarding instances where people who had frequent falls, and people who were assessed as needing specific support with eating and drinking, experienced poor communication from the service and this had led to people not receiving joined-up care. During our inspection, we found the service was generally working well to investigate concerns, implement the correct mitigation and supported people safely, however this was not reflected in the feedback with all external partner agencies. People confirmed they were supported to attend appointments with professionals and gave good feedback about having access to the right support.

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.

Feedback from relatives was positive and people were consistently supported to achieve the best possible outcomes in relation to overall wellbeing. One person told us, “A nurse comes in and talks to us. I had no kidney function. They check our weight and blood pressure regularly.” Another person told us, “Staff help me walk around my room and I go outside.”

The service 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.

People told us they had access to appropriate equipment and professional advice tailored to their specific health conditions.Care records evidenced systems and processes for regular monitoring of key health indicators, including bowel movements, weight, oral hygiene, and food and fluid intake.While monitoring was in place, we found gaps in some monitoring records which indicated systems were not always consistently used. Inconsistent recording of personal care tasks, such as repositioning, raised concerns people may not have been supported consistently with this aspect of care. These gaps had not always been identified or addressed through governance processes at the time of the assessment.

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

Mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were correctly carried out by staff where people lacked capacity. Records we reviewed had good levels of details recorded. For example, some records were decision specific and included details about how a decision had been determined to be in the person’s best interests and clearly documented who had been involved in the process. Staff were able to demonstrate a sound understanding of the Mental Capacity Act and how they applied it in practice. For instance, they were able to explain people’s rights to make unwise decisions and how they would support and respect those choices. Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act.