Chantry

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.

People’s needs were assessed before they moved into the service and regularly reviewed to ensure they were receiving appropriate support. This included where appropriate, consultation with other professionals involved in the person's care and family members. Since the last inspection, the provider had further developed their preadmission assessment process to ensure oversight at board level. This was in part to be clear the provider could meet people’s needs if they had complex health considerations.

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.

People's capacity to make decisions had been considered when choices such as consent to care and treatment had been made and their right to take informed risks was respected. We observed staff carefully listening to people and offering gentle guidance when appropriate. For example, a person using a computer with a spelling board, was being supported to explain to the CQC inspector why they had chosen to make a specific decision about an aspect of their health care.