Cranbourne House

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 stayed the same. 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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s needs were fully assessed before they moved into the home. People and those involved in their care took part in assessments and reviews. Their views and opinions were respected, listened to and implemented as part of their day-to-day support. There was a strong emphasis on ensuring people who were considered were compatible with the people who were already living at the home. The registered manager told us they had reviewed several referrals which they had not accepted due to concerns about compatibility issues potentially arising. Relatives spoke positively about their and their loved one’s experiences moving into the home. Comments included, “During a difficult time they have made me and [name of person] feel like family. [Name of person] is settled and the team are amazing and have made it easier, especially the support during the transition.”

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 service supported people in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice including CQC’s ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance. Care records provided evidence to show good practise guidance was followed. Where monitoring was required, staff maintained clear records. Care records provided evidence to show good practice guidance was followed in areas such as nutrition and hydration and monitoring of behaviour.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people.

There was evidence of good team working within the service and with external partners. The provider employed specialist professionals and support was readily available to the home. There were good links with families and other health and social care professionals. Staff felt supported, valued and included in the day to day running of the home. Comments included, “There is good teamwork, everyone works together to make it a happy place. The house is much more like a home and a nice place for people to live.”

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.

Systems were in place to ensure people had access to specialist support and professional advice was used to inform care plans. Records showed involvement from other professionals including dieticians and specialist nurses. Where people’s needs changed referrals were made promptly. People were supported well to maintain healthy lifestyles. For example, 1 person had been on a weight reducing plan and staff had supported them with a healthy diet and increased opportunities for exercise. Staff told us this contributed to the person’s wellbeing and quality of life significantly improving. People were involved in shopping and preparing meals and snacks and the menu, compiled by people, offered healthy and nutritious choices. Mealtimes were sociable and relaxed.

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.

Processes were in place to evidence people’s care and support was monitored. For example, where required, people’s weights and their nutrition and hydration intake was checked and monitored. Where people presented with periods of distressed behaviours records were reviewed by the provider’s specialist positive behaviour support team to ensure staff received support in recognising any potential themes or triggers and plans of care could be updated. Relatives told us about examples where outcomes for people had improved, which enhanced their lives.

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

Processes were in place to assess people’s capacity. Where people lacked capacity assessments were in place in relation to making decisions in people’s best interests, which involved their circles of support. Staff communicated with people about their choices using objects of reference, visual aids and pictorial calendars. This supported people to tell staff about what they wanted. We observed staff routinely offering choice and people being in control.