Cheriton Care Home

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained the same.

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care.

This service scored 61 (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 care plans in place. However, some care plans lacked sufficient detail regarding the specific support individuals required with their care to promote person centred care. In records viewed we saw people’s preference around their personal and oral care was not consistently provided. For example, care plans outlined people required support with oral care, or it was recorded for staff were to offer weekly bath/ shower, foot care, nail care or hair washes. The daily records did not indicate these were offered or encouraged.

A person's choice of food because of their religious beliefs was not recorded as consistently provided which did not uphold what was important to them.

Whilst care plans were kept under review, the review did not always identify changes in people and did not show evidence of people or relative involvement in them.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

The service did not always work closely with other health professionals to promote continuity of care, in particular on discharge from hospital. As a result, people were placed at risk.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. However, people were not always supported to wear equipment to enable them to be actively involved.

People’s communication needs were identified. During our inspection, we noted some people’s care plans indicated they wore hearing aids. We found those people were not wearing their hearing aids, which impacted communication and their ability to participate fully. Regularly ensuring that hearing aids are put in place as part of daily care is essential for promoting effective communication and involvement.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Systems were in place to enable people and their relatives to share feedback and raise concerns. The service had a complaints policy available and monthly resident meetings took place to enable people to share feedback and ideas on their care. The registered manager told us a key worker system was being developed to further enhance people’s involvement in their care.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service was accessible to people and people were provided with equipment to promote their access to all areas of the service. There was a delay in a person getting the treatment they required. We saw from the multi-disciplinary team (MDT) records on file that the service had identified that and made attempts to address it with the relevant health professional.

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.

There were policies in place to promote equality and meet diverse needs. Staff received training in equality, diversity, and inclusion, which informed their practice. Whilst care planning processes considered a range of individual factors, including disability, age, gender and religion the assessment document was brief and did not reference those.

We received no concerns from people or relatives regarding fairness or equity in the care and support they received.

People were not always 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.

Care plans included a section on hopes and concerns for the future. In the care plans viewed they did not make reference to end of life preferences which did not evidence people or their relatives were consulted on their end of life wishes. At the time of the inspection no one was receiving end of life care. Care plans outlined whether a ‘Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation’ (DNACPR) was in place, and this information was readily accessible in the event of a medical emergency.