Chestnut Court & Beechwood Court (Care Outlook)

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.

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

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.

The service worked in collaboration with the local authority and housing to determine if a person was suitable to move into the service. The person’s care needs were assessed first by the local authority who contacted the service to discuss if their needs could be met. The housing department made the decision during a panel meeting if a person was suitable for living at the service. Based on their needs, the management discussed a suitable care package and put care workers in place to meet the person’s needs.

Pre-admission assessments contained details of the person, their likes and dislikes, health conditions and all aspects of their lives. Based on this, a plan was devised on how to best support the person. Care plans were developed from the initial assessments and were regularly reviewed and updated as people’s needs changed.

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 care needs were monitored and reviewed to help ensure they received consistent care and support that met their needs. The local authority carried out reviews of people’s needs at the provider’s request when this was requested. The registered manager told us they were usually invited to the review meetings, as were family members.

People’s health and nutritional needs were assessed, recorded and met. The staff supported people with their meals during visits, and there was a restaurant on site where people could eat and meet others if they wished to.

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.

Most staff told us they enjoyed working at the schemes and there was a good culture and supportive teamwork. One staff member told us, “It’s a very good place to work, everyone is friendly and supportive.”However, a minority of staff did not agree and said, “No I don’t think I can go to the management. They’re not supportive” and another said, “Staff morale is often low. Many staff have expressed their desire to quit but can’t due to financial reasons.”

We fed this back to the registered manager who assured us they would discuss this in the next staff meeting.

People told us staff seemed to work well together and communicated with them well in order to meet their needs effectively.

The service worked closely with other agencies and professionals to help ensure a more holistic approach to people’s health and wellbeing. The registered manager told us, “If we have serious concerns, we will meet with the relevant health care professional to discuss and find solutions. For example, we met with the district nurse in relation to a person’s pressure ulcer.”

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 told us their healthcare needs were met and their choices respected. They spoke strongly of their desire to exercise their maximum personal independence and said the staff supported them to achieve this. People were able to make personal choices such as what to eat or drink, what to wear and what they wished to participate in. Some people kept mobile with mobility aids, for example an electric wheelchair to go to the shops or to be taken to the local day centre.

Some people had complex needs and were dependent on staff for all aspects of their care. One person told us, “I can’t give up and I keep myself busy. I’m given extra time and making the best of it.”

People were supported to access a range of health care professionals. Care records contained detailed information about people’s health conditions and how these might affect people. Health care professionals said the staff and management team worked closely with them and communication was good.

The registered manager told us they had a good working relationship with the GPs. Some people were able to visit the surgery by themselves, and transport was booked for people attending appointments if needed.

When required, the service made referrals to a range of healthcare professionals such as the district nurse, occupational therapist or continence team. They usually visited people at the service. The registered manager told us, “A district nurse comes and visits most of the residents onsite.”

The management team provided important information to staff as needed. For example, during the heatwave, they had circulated information about the difference between heat exhaustion and heatstroke. This enabled the staff to understand and carry out observations of people and raise the alarm if they had a concern.

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 said their needs were met, and the staff knew them well. They told us the management team regularly checked with them if they were ok, and if they had any concerns.

There were yearly reviews of people’s needs undertaken. The registered manager told us, “We have annual reviews with people. It’s a live document and things change constantly.” They added, “We have telephone monitoring and my door is open all the time. I go and see them in person. The care staff immediately tell us when something is not right with a person. We then follow things up. We find out what is wrong and what we need to do. We communicate with the local authority to see if we need to change the package of care.”

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

The provider was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People told us staff asked for their consent and involved them in decisions about their care and support. They said their choices were respected. The staff received training in the principles of MCA and understood these.

The registered manager ensured people consented to their care and treatment where they could do so. Staff recorded people’s capacity regarding different decisions. The records we reviewed were clear and detailed.