The Pines

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 changed to requires improvement.

This meant people’s needs were not always met.
 

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. Staff did not consistently work in partnership with people or involve them in decisions about how their needs should be met, particularly when these needs changed.

Although staff completed daily notes, we found these were often task focused rather than person centred, meaning they did not fully reflect people’s experiences, preferences or views. Staff told us, “We need to be considerate to the person’s needs and preferences… if a person does not want to do something, we don’t force them,” but this approach was not consistently reflected in records.

The provider told us they aimed to work closely with relatives to ensure care was person centred and described regular communication through visits, texts, emails and calls. While this showed a commitment to involving relatives, this was not consistently translated into day to day documentation or practice.

These inconsistencies meant people were not always fully involved in decisions about their care, and their preferences were not always reflected in the way support was planned or delivered.
 

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 provider did use agency staff on occasion but used agency staff that had supported people at The Pines previously. Throughout the inspection, management also referred to various organisations for support when needed. We saw people’s care plans contained information from external healthcare professionals such as Speech and Language Therapists (SaLT).

One relative told us, “I feel that our views are always welcomed and, where relevant, acted upon.”
 

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate or up to date information in formats tailored to people’s individual communication needs. This meant information was not consistently accessible or meaningful to everyone.

People’s communication needs were recorded in their care plans, and the provider told us that each person had pictorial information displayed in their rooms. Individual notice boards also contained personalised information, including easy read care plans and guidance from healthcare professionals such as Speech and Language Therapists. These systems showed an intention to make information accessible.

Although accessible formats were in place, some of the information we reviewed was out of date and required updating. We also found that some information displayed in communal areas was not tailored to people’s needs. For example, the food menu in the dining room was printed in a small format and was difficult to find, and there was no clear or accessible information displayed about activities. These gaps meant that people could not always access or understand important information about their daily routines, choices or opportunities.
The provider did not demonstrate they consistently followed the Accessible Information Standard (AIS), which requires services to ensure people with disabilities, impairments or sensory loss receive information in a way they can understand.

Because information was not always current, accessible or tailored, people were placed at risk of missing essential updates about their care, meals or opportunities for engagement. This meant they could be excluded from activities that support their wellbeing and may not have received information in the way that best met their individual needs. Inconsistent compliance with the Accessible Information Standard further increased the likelihood that people’s communication needs were not fully met.
 

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not consistently involve people in decisions about their care or communicate clearly about changes that had been made as a result of their feedback.

The provider completed annual surveys with relatives, staff and external professionals. Staff told us they asked people about their wishes and needs during day to day interactions and described a willingness to escalate concerns to senior staff when required. This demonstrated that some systems to gather views were in place.

However, we did not find evidence that the provider sought feedback directly from people using the service or supported them to participate in formal review processes. There were no residents’ meetings, and it was unclear how people were involved in decisions about meal planning or food choices. Some staff told us they communicated with people in English, but there was limited evidence that communication needs or preferred methods were considered to ensure people fully understood their options.

Because people were not always supported to express their views or involved in decisions, there was a risk their preferences were overlooked or not acted upon. This meant people could not always influence their care, and changes may not have reflected what mattered most to them, reducing the responsiveness and person centredness of the service.
 

The provider did not always make sure people could access the care, support or treatment they needed when they needed it. People were not consistently involved in decisions when changes were made to their care or treatment.

People were supported to attend healthcare appointments, and the provider arranged visits from external professionals such as nurses, chiropodists and general practice paramedics. Care records demonstrated regular involvement from healthcare professionals, and people could also access additional wellbeing support such as a reflexologist. Staff supported people to engage in individual activities including board games, coffee shop visits and colouring.

However, we found the provider did not always contact emergency services or healthcare professionals without delay. For example, we found evidence that people did not always receive timely access to hospital treatment when needed. We also observed changes being made to people’s care or treatment without their involvement or awareness, meaning people were not consistently kept informed.

Delays in contacting emergency services or healthcare professionals placed people at risk of not receiving prompt treatment when their health needs changed. A lack of involvement in changes to their care meant people were at risk of receiving support that did not fully reflect their wishes, preferences or understanding.
 

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.

The provider showed us ‘success stories’ they had compiled about people using the service. This included information about people’s progress and developments within the service.We saw people’s care plans contained detailed information about their religious needs, and their individual communication needs. We also observed staff engaged in activities with people according to their preferences and likes. For example, we saw staff supported people to play board games and access laptops to watch movies.
 

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 lives.

Care records included details of people’s choices regarding future events. For example, details of people’s preferences and wishes for the end of their lives. Information about people's religion and cultural preferences was available if support was required.

Staff had completed training around end-of-life care, and the provider had a policy in place to support this.

One relative told us, “The care home manager liaises with us regularly on life changes and future development needs.”