Champion 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 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 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

At the previous assessment, we identified that care plans lacked sufficient detail, particularly in relation to nutrition and hydration. At this assessment, we noted improvements in the quality-of-care planning. Care plans now contain appropriate levels of detail to support safe and effective care delivery.

Overall, care records reflected individuals’ needs and included relevant personal information. The level of detail was generally sufficient to enable staff to provide safe care and treatment. We saw evidence that care plans were reviewed and updated when people’s needs changed. Managers informed us that monthly comprehensive reviews were planned, encompassing care plans, risk assessments, and any changes in health and well-being. Where appropriate, referrals to healthcare professionals such as dietitians or occupational therapists would be made.

The provider plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

Nationally recognised tools, such as the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) and Waterlow Assessment Tool, were used to monitor health.

Care planning was aligned with legislation, evidence-based practice, and professional guidance. Documentation included nutrition and hydration needs, with specialist recommendations from Speech and Language Teams where required.

Care plans and assessment tools were reviewed periodically by the management and staff team to ensure they remained current and relevant.

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.

At our last assessment, we found limited evidence of co-ordinated care across services. We noted improvements at this assessment and saw that care was well co-ordinated across services.

Verbal handovers were in place between day and night shifts.

Staff worked closely with other teams, such as GPs, psychologists, specialist nurses, pharmacists, podiatrists, and dentists, so people had joined-up, consistent care. A visiting professional told us, 'I don’t have any concerns when we come here.' Another visiting professional said, 'I am here to make sure people have what they require. I am here to support the nurses and staff. I have provided positive feedback to the service around how they care for people.'

 

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.

People’s medical care plans were detailed and included information about their physical and mental health care needs. Relevant past medical history details were included along with possible effects of long-term conditions and what support they needed to try to avoid these.

Health matters had been discussed with people to help them to decide what actions they would be happy with to improve their health and well-being.

Where appropriate, staff consulted with external health and social care professionals to ensure people received consistent care and support.

The provider monitored people’s care and treatment in a way that supported continuous improvement. We found people were consulted in relation to care reviews, areas of improvement was required with medication records. The provider was open and honest in relation to making continuous improvements.

Outside professionals were complimentary in relation to the home with supporting peoples care and treatment when required. One professional told us, “We have seen improvements in the home and people receive good care.”

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

At the previous assessment, mental capacity assessments were found to be unclear. At this assessment, we noted improvements.

Where individuals were unable to provide consent, decision-specific capacity assessments and best interest decisions were in place.Feedback from people and families regarding involvement in capacity assessments however was mixed. One relative stated, 'I'm not aware of this and have not been involved.' One person said, 'I'm not involved in all that,' while another commented, 'I am involved in all my care.'

Although staff had completed training, not all demonstrated a clear understanding of the Mental Capacity Act. This was discussed with the manager to ensure the principles are fully embedded within the service. However, no one we spoke with told us they had any concerns their consent to care and treatment were not supported. One person told us, “They [staff] always ask me before supporting any of my support.”