Cheriton Homecare Limited

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

Comprehensive initial assessments were carried out before a person started receiving a service. This included meeting with the person and understanding what support they would like and how they would like it to be delivered. This was a collaborative approach throughout which a care plan was co-produced to ensure it matched a person’s wishes. People told us they were fully involved in planning and reviewing their support. One person told us, “I said exactly what I wanted and I sent in detailed information to the agency. I was fully involved in the care planning process.” Staff had access to care plans prior to starting work with a person to ensure they could get to know their individual needs. Where possible, people were matched with staff who had similar interests.

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 was delivered in line with evidence-based approaches and reflected people’s individual care needs. Suitable nationally recognised tools were used to assess and meet people’s needs. For example, the Waterlow scoring system was used to monitor risks to people’s skin integrity. Where risks had been identified, measures were put in place to minimise these. Staff were trained to meet the specific needs of the people they cared for, and additional training was offered should people’s needs change.

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.

Staff had good working relationships with each other, and external professionals, which enabled them to deliver coordinated, consistent and safe care. Communication across the small staff team was effective. Staff spoke of the reliability of both the registered manager and office staff should they need to contact them. There was a strong emphasis on teamwork at the agency. One staff member told us, “Cheriton is different to other places, they are more consistent and understanding and can easily talk through issues. We are a close-knit team.” External professionals told us that they had good relationships with the service and felt their approach was always open and transparent. We saw that referrals to health and social care professionals had been made appropriately.

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.

Staff supported people to maintain their health and wellbeing, and encouraged participation in meaningful activities, with an emphasis on promoting independence. Records showed that staff worked closely with other health and social care services to support people to live healthy lifestyles. For example, people were supported to attend GP or dental appointments when required. Referrals to external agencies had been made in a timely manner in order to reduce risks to people. Where people had been losing weight or struggling with their nutritional needs, alternative food options were explored to encourage better intake. People’s hydration was closely monitored to ensure this remained at a suitable level. Staff received additional training when a person had a specific health need they required support with, such as Parkinson’s Disease or diabetes.

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.

The registered manager and office team used quality assurance processes and regular communications with people to monitor outcomes. Staff received regular spot checks to ensure they were supporting people in the best way to meet their needs and desired outcomes. People told us they were frequently in communication with the registered manager, office team and staff to discuss any wishes they had. Action was taken to ensure care needs were effectively and positively met.

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

People were asked for their consent in relation to their care. This was documented in their care plans. Staff confirmed that they would consistently seek permission before providing care. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and applied this appropriately to their practice. Where people were unable to make decisions, action was taken in their best interests and involved the relevant representatives. One person told us that they had asked their family to be involved in decision making. The relative told us, “I am involved in decision making. I was involved at the start, and everything has been going well since then. It is nice that I feel confident [person] is being looked after.”