Cantley Grange

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. People’s needs were assessed before they began using the service. The assessment covered all key aspects of their care and support, including mobility, nutrition, personal hygiene, medicines, communication, and social interests. The management team gathered as much information as possible from people, their relatives, and the local authorities commissioning the care packages. This ensured they had sufficient detail to understand and meet each person’s needs. For 1 person at the service, we were provided with an example of how they had written their own care plan for staff to follow.

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. Recognised assessment and monitoring tools were used appropriately to track improvements or concerns. The management team had oversight of these and planned action appropriately with the involvement of family and the staff team. The service had links with other organisations such as the district nursing community team, physiotherapy teams, and speech and language therapists (SALT). The local GP visited the home regularly to check on people’s welfare, and we saw evidence of staff sharing information about people’s needs with the GP.

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. Records reviewed show the service worked in partnership with other professionals such as the GP, who visited the service frequently. Communication was timely and effective with professionals and concerns were raised and acted upon promptly. Some relatives told us the service worked with external professionals to improve safety for their loved ones. For example, a relative commented, “When [relative] first went in, they had a lot of falls. I spoke with the [registered] manager about this, and they put falls sensor mats in place and supported [relative] with a cushioned helmet to protect their head.”

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 monitored people’s health care needs and informed the appropriate people of any changes in health. For example, during our assessment, 1 person had a chest infection, they had supported this person to access anti-biotics, be reviewed by the GP and were monitoring fluid intake and welfare of this person. Relatives told us they were always informed of any changes in their family member’s care needs. One relative told us, “They [staff] always keep me up to date about any medical conditions for [relative], they ring me if a flu-jab is needed, or to arrange their annual hospital appointment."

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. Staff routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. Staff knew the people they supported well. They used a range of clinical tools to monitor and identify any risks to people. For example, ‘Waterlow’ assessments, to assess people at risk of poor skin integrity. Care records were reviewed regularly. Where people were at risk of losing too much weight, their weight was regularly monitored and action taken if needed. Staff knew people’s needs well and care plans were person centred, which supported staff to provide the right care to people which met their specific needs.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. We observed staff knocking on people’s doors prior to entering. When asked, staff understood the importance of gathering consent from people, with 1 staff member telling us, “I always ask for people’s consent, prior to delivering any care. It’s important I am clear and explain what I am doing first."