Cleadon Court

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. This was the first inspection for this service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. However, people’s care records did not always reflect their current needs, preferences or lived experience. Some care plans lacked sufficient detail to guide staff on how to support people in a personalised way, particularly where people had complex needs or required support with decision-making. This meant staff did not always have clear, consistent information to support people in ways that reflected their choices and values. The new manager and team were taking action to ensure care records were improved.

Staff had not always working effectively with other professionals to make sure people experienced coordinated, continuous care. Systems for sharing information with external professionals were inconsistent. While referrals were made when concerns were identified, follow-up and recording of outcomes were not always clear. This created a risk that important actions or professional advice were not consistently embedded into people’s ongoing care. Professionals had found staff had not understood escalation processes. For example, staff had not considered the appropriateness of someone attending 4 reviews at the same GP practice on the same day so had not combined or rescheduled appointments. A relative said, “During meetings changes to managing [person’s] support are discussed but Cleadon Court regularly over promise and under deliver. The current deputy manager has implemented things to improve [person’s] life, but I am unsure how long she will remain at Cleadon Court.”

Staff supplied appropriate information in a variety of formats that were tailored to individual needs. Some information was provided in an accessible and supportive way, and staff were able to explain aspects of care when asked. Relatives described being kept informed about key issues and changes. A person said, “I find staff always take the time to explain things to me so I know what is happening.”

Staff had not always listened to or involved people effectively in decisions about their care. People had always been not consistently involved in reviews of their care records, and opportunities to formally record their views and preferences had been missed. Although people were supported to express their views informally about the service this feedback had not been systematically captured or used to shape the service. Some relatives told us they were involved and felt able to raise concerns, but others felt any agreed improvements were not sustained because these were not shared with staff or as staff changed. The new management team were aware improvements needed to be made and were taking action to do this.

Staff made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People were able to access the service and healthcare professionals when required, and there was evidence of referrals being made to external services. Staff were aware of people’s basic needs and supported access to appointments and treatment.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. For example, staff completed training in equality and diversity to understand and reduce inequalities or prejudices that affected outcomes for people. Staff ensured peoples’ social and healthcare needs were fully considered and met.

Staff had not consistently planned effectively for people’s future needs. Care records did not always show clear forward planning, particularly in relation to changes in health, capacity, or longer-term outcomes. Reviews were not always timely, and anticipated needs were not consistently identified or documented. There was limited evidence of proactive planning with people, relatives and professionals to support transitions or reduce the risk of avoidable deterioration. This meant people were not always supported in a way that helped them prepare for future changes in their care and support needs.