Cotswolds Rise Residential Care 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.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated 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 home or deputy manager carried out pre-admission assessments of people’s needs. This ensured people’s needs would be met effectively at the service.

Assessments covered a wide range of needs to get as much information as possible about the person and their life story. Conversations with people and their relatives were seen as an important part of the assessment process. Once people moved into the service a ’72-hour admissions audit’ was completed. This helped the service identify any gaps in information about people’s needs.

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. The provider had a team of central operations staff who supported their services to work to nationally recognised standards. For example, there were quality support staff who completed regular audits of care records and staff practice. Regional support staff were able to log into the electronic care planning system and make sure incident forms were completed and reviewed correctly.

We observed mealtimes on site and found they were relaxed and inclusive. People had food and drink that met their preferences. We observed staff showing people menu options on ‘show plates’. This is good practice for people living with dementia who may struggle to remember and decide on what food they want. Using ‘show plates’ supports people to see and smell the options available. This approach however was not consistently used during our assessment. The home manager told us they would address this with staff.

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 worked with a wide range of professionals to make sure people had the care needed to meet their needs. People’s records demonstrated referrals were made in a timely way and people had the support needed to meet their needs.

Professionals told us staff were friendly and interested in learning more about people’s health conditions. One professional told us, “All staff are friendly and approachable. The staff that I usually engage with are curious and open to discussion and learning about people’s behaviour and how best to support them.”

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’s health needs were recorded in their care plans and reviewed monthly or sooner if needs changed. There were daily and weekly visits from healthcare professionals to review people’s health conditions where needed. For example, community nurses visited daily to administer insulin and at other times for wound care management. Local GP surgeries held weekly clinics to review people’s health conditions and treatments. Records demonstrated people were involved and consulted about their healthcare where appropriate.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. People’s health outcomes were monitored with support from visiting healthcare professionals. For example, where people experienced distress, staff referred people to local care home liaison teams. Specialist staff from that team visited the service and supported staff to reduce people’s distress. This included monitoring people’s behaviour or medicines.

The provider had various systems which helped staff monitor people’s care. There was a ‘resident of the day’ system, a daily heads of department meeting, staff handovers and care reviews.

Staff attended weekly clinical governance meetings to review people’s needs and outcomes. This helped staff identify any further medical support needed to meet people's changing needs.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Staff received training on the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Staff were also given a set of ‘flash cards’ which had the principles of the MCA recorded. Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of making sure people gave consent for their care. We observed staff asking people for their consent before carrying out care. Where people lacked capacity, their records recorded MCA assessments had been completed and decisions made in people’s best interests.