Cera Castleham Lodge

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 Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has improved to 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.

There had previously been concerns people with increasingly complex needs being assessed for admission to extra care housing. The new manager now had access to the admission panel and was able to have input into whether the service could meet people’s needs before they were offered a flat at Castleham Lodge. The management team would then be able to discuss what care could be provided and manage expectations.

There had not been any admissions since the last assessment. The regional manager said they would closely assess what care needs could be met within the scheme. The provider clarified they would now carry out their own assessment prior to the new person moving in to ensure their care team had the skills to meet the person’s individual needs. Additional training for staff would be arranged for any specialist need, if required.

Since the last assessment, all the care plans had been reviewed. This meant the new manager was able to tell us which people living at Castleham Lodge received personal care and their care needs. Staffing levels were calculated on these care needs, so it was important for them to be up to date and accurate.

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.

Care plans had been completed for all people receiving a personal care service. They contained personalised information as people had contributed to them. One person said, “They know how I like things done and we have a nice time.” They were now regularly reviewed with guidance updated so people were not put at risk of deteriorating conditions or increasing concerns not being addressed.

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.

Governance processes ensured the new manager was aware who required what support with personal care and was able to devise staff rotas accordingly. The staff team was now more stable following a period of change. All staff had access to a working care records device and knew who to contact for IT support.

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 care plans detailed their health conditions and were now very detailed and enabled staff to know exactly how to meet peoples’ needs. Staff could access risk assessments and people told us the current staff knew them well.

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 plans were now routinely monitored. The new manager had ensured they were all up to date and had discussed them during staff supervisions. Staff had been told to re-read care plans and people said staff knew what to do. Culturally some staff previously had been taking longer on people’s visits as they had added unfunded additional tasks. Some staff were frustrated and when we spoke with them, they spoke as if the service was a care home and said they did not know what was on the care plan tasks list. One staff member told us they did whatever the person needed, however they named some tasks that were not on the care plan but were related to enabling/cleaning. This could mean there was more work that staff were doing that was not planned for. The provider was working with staff as a group to ensure expectations and understanding of the service was clear so outcomes could be monitored more effectively.

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

People said staff asked for their consent before they carried out personal care tasks, and we saw staff gaining consent before they entered people’s flats. One person said, “The staff always make sure I’m happy to start.” The staff training matrix showed staff were up to date with relevant mental capacity act training. Staff had received refresher training in the mental capacity act and best interest decision making. The new manager had ensured people’s lasting power of attorney information was known, so that peoples’ legal rights were protected.