Scorton Care Village

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 75 (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 assessed and reviewed people's health, care, wellbeing, and communication needs to help ensure they received effective care and support. Comprehensive assessments provided staff with information about people's physical health, mental wellbeing, communication needs, life histories, preferences, and risks. Reviewed records confirmed assessments were updated when people's needs changed and included guidance to support consistent care delivery. We saw examples of care plans containing detailed information about specialist needs, including difficulty in swallowing (dysphagia), motor neurone disease, and dementia. Staff told us care records were regularly updated and provided the information they needed to support people safely and effectively.
We identified some opportunities to improve the consistency of care planning documentation, including aspects of end-of-life assessments and mental capacity recording. The provider acknowledged these findings and were already progressing improvements through their quality assurance systems.
 

The provider planned and delivered people's care and treatment in line with current evidence-based guidance and professional recommendations. Care plans contained detailed information to support staff to meet people's assessed needs safely and consistently. We saw examples where specialist advice from healthcare professionals, including speech and language therapists, dietitians and motor neurone disease specialists, had been incorporated into people's care and treatment plans. Records included clear guidance for staff in areas such as eating and drinking, pressure care, mobility, communication, and the safe use of specialist equipment. Care records demonstrated people received care and support that reflected their individual needs, preferences, and current best practice.

The provider worked well with other teams and services to support people and achieve positive outcomes. Care records demonstrated regular involvement from healthcare professionals, including GPs, community mental health teams, district nurses, and social workers. Staff shared information appropriately and sought specialist advice when people's needs changed.
Healthcare professionals spoke positively about working with the service. A visiting health professional told us, “Communication with nursing staff was good” and “concerns were responded to promptly.” Staff also described positive working relationships with external professionals, enabling timely referrals and coordinated support. One registered nurse told us there were “good working relationships with GPs, community mental health teams and speech and language therapists, which helped ensure people received the care and support they needed.”
 

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing and access the healthcare services they needed. Monitoring of care records evidenced regular oversight of people's health, including nutrition, weight, skin integrity, and long-term health conditions. Where concerns were identified, staff sought advice from relevant healthcare professionals and adjusted care accordingly.
People and relatives were positive about the support provided. One relative told us, “[Person’s] medication is on time, staff respond to pain and they listen to us if we think they are in discomfort.” Another relative said, “If there’s a problem, [person] will see the GP or the nurse, and we are kept informed about medication and any changes.”
 

The provider routinely monitored people's care and treatment to help ensure positive outcomes were achieved. Records showed regular reviews of people's needs, risks, and wellbeing, with updates made when changes were identified. Monthly resident observations were analysed to identify changes in people's presentation and any areas requiring further review or action. Care plans and risk assessments were regularly reviewed to reflect people's current needs and support consistent care delivery.
Governance systems supported oversight of people's outcomes. Audit processes included reviews of accidents and incidents, dependency levels, and care records, helping managers identify trends and monitor the effectiveness of care provided. Where improvements were identified, actions were recorded and monitored through the provider's quality assurance systems.
 

The provider supported people to make decisions about their care and treatment wherever possible and followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Care records included mental capacity assessments and best-interest decision-making processes covering areas such as medicines, accommodation, finances, and safety measures. Staff understood the importance of seeking consent and involving people in decisions wherever possible.
We found restrictions, including sensor mats and door security systems, were used appropriately to manage known risks and there was no evidence of unnecessary restrictive practice. The UK Supreme Court judgment published in June 2026 revised the approach to assessing deprivation of liberty and emphasised the importance of considering a person's wishes, feelings and individual circumstances when making decisions about care arrangements. The provider had identified the need to further review some MCA, DoLS and best-interest documentation to ensure records fully reflected consultation, consent, and the rationale for decisions in line with the updated legal framework. We found no evidence this had affected the care people received, and the provider was progressing improvements through their quality assurance processes.