Charlton Grange Care Home

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, and others involved in their care, were actively involved in assessments and reviews of their care and support needs. People were listened to and their choices and preferences had been used to plan their care and support needs. One relative said, “Communication has been excellent, I cannot fault them, they really care, it comes from the heart. They call the GP or paramedics when necessary, which gives me huge peace of mind.” Staff understood people’s individual needs and how these should be met. This was through discussing people’s needs in handover meetings, as well as reading care plans. One staff member told us “We read care plans and check what the person requires to be safe and well cared for, their levels of fluids, diet and everything.” The provider used clinical assessment tools to monitor people’s risk of malnutrition, of developing pressure ulcers. Complex health needs were identified and care plans specific to diabetes, catheter care and end of life care were in place. We saw effective assessment and monitoring of wounds, with referrals made to the tissue viability team for wound management as appropriate.

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. Managers made sure the care and support planned for people was individualised and specific to their needs. Staff were supported through training and supervision to deliver care and support to people in line with legislation, good practice and standards.

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. People were supported by staff that worked well together and with other services. This helped to ensure a joined up, consistent approach to delivering safe and effective care to people in line with their individual needs. One person told us, “I know I am seen by the GP, chiropodist, dentist, and also been taken to the hospital for my hearing aids.” The interim manager told us there was a good relationship with the local GP practice, one of whom visited each week.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. People were supported to stay healthy and well in line with their needs and wishes. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. A family member told us, “On my last visit [person] was walking so much better than when they first arrived here. Staff are not discouraging [person] from walking and instead, a member of staff walks behind, offering lots of encouragement.” Information about people’s healthcare needs was assessed and reviewed at regular intervals. This meant staff had up to date information about people’s needs to help them support people to live healthier lives.

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. People’s care and support was regularly reviewed to ensure this was meeting their needs and expected outcomes. Systems were in place to monitor the care and support provided to people to ensure this remained effective. A family member told us, “We are always informed of medical changes and hospital appointments.”

The provider told people about their rights around consent and these were respected when person-centred care and treatment was delivered. People were asked for their consent and were involved in day-to-day choices and decisions. This was clearly recorded in care plans. For example, a person’s care plan documented the decision making process with a person and their family member where the person chose to eat foods of their choice, despite the inherent assessed risk with this. People were helped to understand they could refuse to receive care and support if they wished and staff would respect their decision. We were told, “The staff seek consent for everything.” The Mental Capacity Act provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. Staff worked within the principles of the Act and understood their role and responsibility in upholding those principles. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised. This is done through obtaining a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The interim manager maintained a record of all DoLS applications which alerted them to when a person’s DoLS was due for renewal. Staff understood people’s capacity to make decisions about their care and support and used people’s preferred method of communication. One staff member said, “When I do anything for a resident, I explain and give them choices and if the answer is no, then I will return later and try again.” They also understood the process to follow when a person was not able to give their consent and told us, “I did the training for the Mental Capacity Act. We always give people a choice, we offer and we ask,” and “[Person] is not able to consent to the use of bedrails, so a best interest decision making meeting was held with a family member and the manager made a Deprivation of Liberty safeguard application.