Treetops Court Care Home Also known as 1-2655136637

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

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 changed 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. The service ensured people’s care and treatment were effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs in partnership with them.

People’s needs were assessed thoroughly before they moved into the service to ensure these could be met safely and effectively. Care plans were reviewed regularly to ensure they remained accurate and up to date. People and their relatives were actively involved in these reviews, helping to ensure care reflected their current needs and preferences. One person told us, “Staff know what I like and don’t like; they know me well, and if they are new, they soon get to know me.” A relative said, “I have been involved with my [person]’s care from the very beginning.”

Once living at the home, people continued to receive individualised care that reflected their preferences, wishes and specific support needs. One relative told us, “My [person] was on a lot of medication when they moved in. That has been slowly reduced; they have remained calm and happy. I’m really pleased with how things are here; they have supported my [person] well, and [person] has settled down nicely.”

The service operated a ‘resident of the day’ system, where individuals’ care plans, risk assessments and health needs were reviewed in detail. This supported ongoing monitoring, ensured records were accurate and up to date, and enabled staff to identify and respond to any changes in a timely way.

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 needs were clearly identified through thorough assessment, and staff supported people in ways that ensured those needs were consistently met. Staff involved people in decisions about their care wherever possible, helping to promote choice, independence, and person‑centred practice. One relative told us, “[Person] is relatively independent. [Person] likes to maintain their independence and the staff help with this, they help [person] to socialise as much or as little as they like.”

Where people were unable to express their views, advocates were engaged to ensure their rights were upheld and their best interests represented.

Staff demonstrated knowledge of best practice guidelines and followed policies consistently. Care plans reflected people’s needs and were informed by professional input from GPs, nurses, and other health professionals. Records showed that interventions were timely and based on recommendations.

Audits and competency assessments were in place to monitor practice and provided assurance that staff were applying evidence-based approaches, particularly in areas such as medicines management and nutrition. Where improvements were identified, action plans were implemented promptly to support compliance and embed sustained improvements.

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.

Partnership working was well established and supported a coordinated and responsive approach, with people’s needs being met from the outset. Staff worked effectively with a range of internal teams and external professionals to share information and ensure continuity of care One professional told us, “Staff care, communicate well, and do their best. They follow recommendations and know their residents well.”

Staff worked closely with external professionals and with people using the service to ensure needs were clearly understood from the point of admission. This enabled staff to access accurate and up-to-date information, supporting effective care planning for new people while maintaining safe and consistent care for those already living at the home.

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.

Nutrition and hydration assessments were completed, and menus reflected people’s choices and dietary requirements. One person told us, “Food is really good, we always have meetings where we can tell them what we like and what we don't like, and they always listen.” One relative told us, “The food is good the staff know what [person] likes and they look after [person] and that makes us happy.”

Menus reflected dietary needs and preferences and had a picture to help people with choice. We saw evidence that modified diets, such as soft diets, were provided and followed appropriately. Staff understood individual requirements how to promote healthy living while respecting people’s choices.

Menus were discussed during residents’ meetings, and during ‘resident of the day’ activities, the chef spoke with people about their likes and dislikes to help ensure meals met their preferences.

Staff promoted good hydration and nutrition, ensuring that people who required fortified meals, modified textures, or specialist dietary support received these in line with their assessed needs.

People’s health and wellbeing were regularly monitored and recorded in daily care records. This enabled staff to identify any changes promptly and take appropriate action to support people to maintain their health.

Staff worked with healthcare professionals, such as GPs, dietitians and Speech and Language to ensure health needs were met promptly.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve outcomes; however, feedback highlighted positive experiences of care and oversight of people’s health needs.

Relatives told us they felt people’s health needs were monitored safely and appropriately. One relative said, “Staff meet all of [person]’s needs.” Another relative told us, “[Staff member] know when [person]’s condition is worsening; they know [person] well.”

Staff described how they monitored people’s health needs as part of daily practice, including physical health indicators such as weight. One staff member told us, “People are supported according to their care plan, and I follow these to give them the best support. Any needs or changes are discussed in handovers, clinical meetings and staff meetings. It’s my duty to ensure I’m up to date with people’s care plans as they are updated by the manager.” This demonstrated that monitoring was embedded into routine practice and supported by effective communication systems.

Staff also spoke about the importance of providing dignified end-of-life care. One staff member told us, “We support residents and their families at end of life to ensure that people’s needs are met and their choices respected. I am passionate about end-of-life care and how we only have one chance to get it right. I am proud of the work that we do to ensure our residents die with dignity, comfort, and in accordance with their wishes and preferences.”

People received regular reviews to ensure their care plans remained accurate and responsive to their changing needs. Staff worked in partnership with external professionals to support a coordinated approach, ensuring any required treatment or interventions were arranged promptly and in line with people’s wishes and preferences. However, our observations during the inspection indicated that people’s wider wellbeing needs were not always fully met. At times, there was limited social interaction within the main lounge area. While some people had been supported to access activities outside the home, those remaining in the lounge experienced low levels of engagement, with minimal meaningful interaction observed.

A Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) reflected limited interaction between staff and people at the time of observation. The registered manager acknowledged this during feedback and advised they would address this with staff to improve engagement.

Overall, systems effectively monitored and reviewed care. However, improvements were needed to ensure people’s wellbeing and opportunities for meaningful engagement were consistently considered.

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

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. This can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service.

We saw evidence during the inspection of staff explaining to individuals what medication they were taking. One relative told us, “Staff are really good with [person] medication and if there are any changes they speak to me and I can also speak to the doctor.” Another relative told us, “[Person] is very safe staff discuss any change with me.”

Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). One staff member told us, “MCA is about helping people to make their own decisions. Some people have capacity over decisions such as what to wear, but they may need support with personal care.” Another staff member told us, “When I’m helping a resident, I always ask for consent and explain what I’m doing.”

This showed staff understood decision‑specific capacity and how to provide appropriate support without restricting people’s rights.