Cottingham Manor 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. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 67 (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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them effectively.

People’s needs were fully assessed prior to them moving to the service. A ‘resident of the day’ system was in place to ensure people’s care plans were regularly reviewed. However, neither people nor their relatives understood these reviews had taken place. It was not clear from records that care plans were shown and discussed with people or relatives. The registered manager told us this would be improved.

Care plans contained information about people’s individual preferences and communication needs. However, care plans did not always direct staff in how to communicate with people who used non-verbal communication. Staff we spoke with were not able to describe how they would communicate with people who were not able to converse with them. When asked a staff member told us, “We talk to them.” Another said, “We have nothing other than verbal communication.”

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.

People received evidenced-based care and support. The provider’s systems ensured staff were up to date with legislation and best practice standards. People’s nutritional needs were met. For example, staff were aware of people who required a modified diet. Kitchen staff were aware of the risks around people’s dietary needs.

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.

Feedback received from partners was very positive. A healthcare professional described how staff were proactive in providing information and told us, “They (staff) raise stuff with us, nothing gets left.”

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 were vigilant at spotting when people were unwell and ensuring they accessed appropriate medical support and treatment. People received regular reviews with health professionals. One person’s mobility had improved through regular access to physiotherapy and support from staff. Another person’s risks when eating had reduced due to appropriate support and encouragement from staff.

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.

Case studies documented how people’s health and wellbeing had improved whilst living at Cottingham Manor. For example, some people had improved their mobility, others had gained in independence, and others had increased their social activities. However, care documents were not always consistent in recording when or how people’s fluid intake required monitoring.

The provider told people about their rights around consent. However, staff did not always respect or understand people's rights when delivering care and treatment.

Care documents did not always accurately record when people had capacity to consent to their care and treatment. There was a lack of consistency in care documents and from staff about whether people had capacity to consent. In one instance a relative had consented when the person had capacity to do so themselves. Staff had not identified this was incorrect. We brought this to the attention of the registered manager who made immediate arrangements to have this reviewed. People had not consented for their inclusion on social media.