Critchill 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 service since it was registered to the current provider. 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 and wellbeing needs with them.

People had their needs assessed before they moved into the home to make sure it was the right place for them. From initial assessments digital care plans were created to make sure staff had the information they needed to effectively support people.

The provider operated a ‘resident of the day’ system to make sure care plans were regularly reviewed with people. One family member told us, “They have responded well to changes in need and the carers are all very good, showing empathy with the residents."

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. Some improvements were needed to ensure everyone had a positive dining experience.

The provider used recognised assessment tools to identify people’s needs and risks. Staff received regular training to ensure their practice was in accordance with up-to-date best practice and legislation.

People were generally happy with the food served at the home. Where people required their meal to be served at a specific consistency we saw they received the correct meal.

There were two main dining rooms, and we observed lunch being served in both areas. In one area we found that people were not shown a choice of meal, there were no condiments or drinks on the table and staff were rushed. This resulted in a mealtime which was not pleasant or relaxed. Following the inspection visit the registered manager carried out a mealtime observational audit to identify where improvements could be made.

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 other professionals to make sure people’s needs were met. A representative from the local GP surgery visited on a weekly basis to enable people and staff to share medical concerns. We saw the surgery had supplied positive feedback about how staff interacted with them and commented that staff provided clear information about people.

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.

Records showed people were able to access a range of healthcare professionals according to their individual needs. One person said, “They contact the doctor for you if you need it.”

Activity staff encouraged people to stay active with gentle exercise. On the day of the inspection some people were taking part in an armchair exercise class.

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’s care was regularly reviewed, and support was adjusted in accordance with people’s changing needs to promote good outcomes. A social care professional had written to staff about one person. They commented the family had noticed the person was less anxious and said the care provided had had a positive impact on the whole family.

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

During the inspection visit we saw people were asked for their consent before staff carried out any care.

Where people lacked the capacity to make specific decisions these were made in their best interests. Care plans showed where decisions had been made in people’s best interests in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.