Cleeve Court Community Resource Centre

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 – At this inspection we only looked at consent to care and treatment because no other areas of concern were identified.

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

We did not look at Assessing needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment. When they had these were not accurately recorded to demonstrate they were in line with current legislation.

Care plans did not demonstrate discussions with people and their families were in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 statutory guidance. Care plans did not identify how the decision was communicated, what options were discussed, whether the decision was the least restrictive option or who was involved if the person lacked capacity. We raised this with leadership team who immediately arranged additional training for staff.