Cooksons 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.At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 88 (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 always made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by thoroughly assessing and reviewing their health, care, well being and communication needs with the

Prior to moving into the service, the provider carried out an assessment of a person’s needs. Information obtained during the assessment was used to develop a care plan and risk management plan. Care plans and assessments reviewed were comprehensive and through. All areas of needs were assessed, and a clear plan was in place to support everyone. People and families told us they were involved in assessments, one relative said, “I was and it has been reviewed since” and another said, “Yes, we had a long conversation about it.”

Background information was detailed and informative for staff to understand and get to know each person individually. Care plans were updated regularly and changing needs were clearly recorded and communicated to the team. For example, during our visit we sat in on a morning meeting and observed the heads of departments discussing people’s needs, all changes were discussed and recorded. These types of meetings were done daily. In addition, the manager had a visual board showing information about people and another visual board in the kitchen with pertinent information on it. This acted as a quick guide to staff. This meant people could be confident that their needs were well documented and up to date.

The provider always 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. They worked to develop evidence-based good practice and standards.

The provider ensured people’s complex care needs were met. Care plans outlined clear and comprehensive guidance for staff to follow when supporting people. Nationally recognised clinical tools were used to assess and monitor people’s care needs. The provider worked with a range of health care professionals, such as tissue viability nurses, dieticians, speech and language therapists and others. The provider shared several examples of how staff had followed recommendations made by professionals. For example, adaptive cutlery was used to support people if there was a risk of choking. The cook was a champion for hydration and nutrition. There was a visual board in the kitchen showing what diets people were on and any allergy information. The cook did a lot of additional work with the team around hydration and nutrition.

Additional hydration stations were introduced around the home following an increase in urine infections. Fluid and food charts were used for people were risks of malnutrition or de hydration were identified. People’s weight was monitored and recorded if there were risks of weight loss or weight gain. The provider understood the importance of using current good practice guidelines and were able to apply them effectively. People were involved in planning their care and making decisions about what is best for them. We observed good practice guidelines being implemented in the home on our visit.

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 knew people well. We spoke to the GP who worked alongside the home and made regular visits to the home. They spoke very highly of the team as a whole and gave us examples of how well the team managed end of life care for people. The GP informed us that they had no concerns about how the team supported people’s clinical needs.

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. Staff encouraged people to live a healthy life for example by providing opportunities for people to exercise regularly and eat healthy nutritious meals. One staff member did a lot of work with the team around nutrition and hydration to improve their understanding of the importance of people not becoming de-hydrated or malnourished. Relatives told us, “[Relative] loves the food and eats plenty, there are always drinks to have too.” Another relative said, “[Relative] has several sensitivities and the chef comes out to ask if she is happy with her meal. She has a pureed diet and says it tastes lovely.”

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. Care records reviewed showed a consistent approach to monitoring people’s outcomes. For example, the registered manager along with the clinical lead, on a routine basis, checked each person’s care and support. Changes were recorded and communicated to the team. If further medical assistance was needed the team would act upon this information. The meant people’s needs were regularly monitored and updated as things changed.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. We observed staff asking people for their consent before supporting them with care. Staff told us they understood about choices and people had the right to refuse care if they wanted to. The team had a good understanding of supporting people if they did not have capacity to make certain decisions. They used a best interest approach and worked alongside families to ensure people’s wishes were considered.