Barton Lodge

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 newly registered service. This key question has been rated Requires Improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 58 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service 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.  People's needs were not always well assessed and planned for. People’s care plans were not always effectively updated when they experienced a change in needs. For example, we identified bedrail assessments were not always fully completed. This increased the risk of people's needs and preferences not being met. In response to our findings about people's care plans, the provider told us they would take action to review people's care plans to ensure accuracy and up-to-date assessment of people's needs. We will check for improvements at our next assessment.

The service did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.  We could not be assured the service always planned and delivered people's care effectively. The provider had failed to identify that people's care plans were not always consistent or reflective of how to meet their needs.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. We saw evidence of the service working with other health professionals to support people’s health and wellbeing, for example, speech and language therapists.

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.  People had their needs assessed and received appropriate nutrition, where they were intolerant to food groups or needed their food to be fortified. A staff member told us the service promoted people’s health by facilitating regular tai chi and exercise sessions in addition to therapeutic massage to those people who wanted to participate.  People were happy with the food on offer, one person told us, “There is plenty to eat and there are always snacks about – cakes and crisps.” Another person told us, “The food is nicely cooked and there is plenty of it. To be perfectly honest I am very happy here.” A relative told us, “[Relative] has not lost weight.”

The service did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.   For example, where people required support to reposition themselves to reduce the risk of skin breakdown, records showed people were left for significant periods of time between changing positions. This placed people at increased risk of developing pressure sores.

The service did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.  Mental capacity assessments were completed and available. However, they lacked sufficient detail about people’s capacity to make specific decisions and consent to their care and treatment. The assessment did not record how the service had established a lack of capacity. When individuals were unable to make informed decisions, the provider did not consistently maintain clear records regarding how decisions were made in their best interests. The records often lacked details on the options considered, which options were disregarded and the reasons for doing so, as well as an explanation of how the chosen decision was the least restrictive option. Where people needed to be deprived of their liberty, the provider had effective systems to seek the legal authority to do so.