Aronel Cottage Care Home Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

The provider worked with other healthcare agencies and providers to ensure continuity of care for people.

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.

The provider did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People had clear care plans which included social care needs. Staff used an electronic care system to record care and to update people's needs in real time. While each person had a distinct care plan, much of the care provided was standardised for everyone. People were assigned bath or shower days; everyone was accompanied to the toilet and people did not walk by themselves at the service. The registered manager told us this was as a risk mitigation. However, people told us they were not always asked about their wants and needs, and a relative told us the service was too risk averse. They said, “The service is safe, but you still need to have a bit of living.”

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The registered manager worked with local GP surgeries, pharmacies, opticians and a chiropodist, all of whom visited the service to attend to people . A relative told us, “They have regular GP visits. [Relative] had an infection and they got the GP in.”

The registered manager arranged dentist visits to the service for people when required.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The provider used the internet and leaflets to inform relatives about the service, including visiting times and how they could feedback comments to the registered manager. Although one relative told us staff struggled to communicate with their deaf relative, most people were very happy with the way staff communicated with them. Within the service there were notice boards and staff spoke to people about events of the day and meal choices.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.
People were able to speak to staff or the registered manager at any time. People knew the registered manager by name and sight and told us, “If you want to speak to him, he’s happy to do so.”
There were regular residents’ meetings where people were able to give their feedback. These meetings were normally hosted by external activity suppliers so people could speak freely. We saw minutes of a meetings showing that people had discussed meals, staffing levels, laundry and activities, although one relative told us they were not invited to these meetings, which they felt would be useful for relatives as they felt that people at the service were not always able to think of things they wanted to do when asked at the meetings, while families might have ideas.
A notice board in the hall had information for people and relatives on how to make a complaint.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.
There were always nurses available to support people at the service. Care needs were managed via an electronic care system, with senior staff being allocated to create and update care plans for specific people they knew well.
 

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Prompts in the care plan ensured questions about peoples’ care needs were open and non-judgemental. Care plans documented people’s protected characteristics, and requirements needed to support them. The provider told us people were asked on the day of admission how they preferred to be addressed and this was recorded on the electronic care system for staff information.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Staff told us how they worked with other agencies such as the local hospice team. The electronic care system in use at the home prompted for important life decisions such as ‘do not resuscitate’ orders and recorded these clearly for staff.