Chestnut Court Care Home

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 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 needs were assessed before they started using the service. Care plans were then developed and were subject to regular review. This meant they were able to reflect people’s needs as they changed over time. Care plans covered areas including personal care, sexuality, communication and mobility. The plans were person-centred, based around the needs of the individuals. They were clear, detailed and comprehensive.

The provider was implementing a new care planning system at the time of our visit which aimed to further improve upon their ability to assess people’s needs.

Staff told us how they assessed people’s needs on a daily basis and when changes occurred they informed nurses and their registered manager to ensure people received any medical attention they required.

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.

The provider had a range of equipment in place such as mobility aids and sensor mats which were aimed at maximising people’s safety. They told us they made referrals to an occupational therapist if a person’s needs changed and specialist equipment was required.

The staff received training that meant they were able to meet the needs of people with conditions associated with older people, such as dementia. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of how dementia impacted upon people’s lives and what they needed to do to be able to deliver effective support to a person living with dementia.

The provider worked well with teams and other services to support people and meet people’s needs. Staff we spoke with said there was good teamwork at the service and that they felt supported by the managers. One member of staff said, “I really like it here. We are a good team, like one big family.” The service worked with other health care providers, including GPs, a tissue viability nurse (TVN) who monitored the condition of people’s skin and a speech and language therapist.

On the day of our visit, we talked to a GP who was in the services visiting people. They told us that the working relationship between themselves and the service was excellent. They added, “I have worked with this service for 8 years, this is a very good place, the staff and management are able to meet people’s needs very well.”

Although care plans were in place covering people’s health needs, necessary recording by staff was not always completed. We looked at the oral health care plans for 2 people, and in both instances the care plans said staff should support the person with oral hygiene 2 times a day. Records were kept of when this support was provided. For 1 person the record showed that between the 23 July and 18 August 2025 support with oral hygiene was only provided on 10 days. For the other person during the same time period, oral hygiene support was only provided on 13 days. This meant the provider was not following their own care plan in relation to oral health care for people, potentially putting them at risk.

People were supported to eat healthily and were involved in deciding what they ate. The head chef met with people in the service to discuss the food they wanted to eat and together created seasonal menu’s which were both appetising and nutritious.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They held daily and weekly meetings amongst senior and nursing staff to discuss what their monitoring and of any actions they would need to take because of it. People’s weight was checked, as was there skin for signs of any tears or pressure ulcers. Records were maintained of care and support provided, such as fluid and food intake.

The provider had access to medical and clinical services that offered support such as the GP, and other health professionals who were able to help improve health outcomes for people.

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

Staff told us how they provided care with the consent of the person. One member of staff said, “We check with them every step of the way what we are doing [when providing support with personal care].” Mental capacity assessments were carried out to determine if people had the capacity to consent to care, and where they lacked the capacity, best interest decisions were made. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were in place for people where appropriate.