Archived: Inglewood Residential 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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 64 (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 ensure peoples care plans captured their preferences placing them at the centre of care and treatment choices or take action to update plans in response to changes in people’s needs. People and relatives were not always aware of their care plans or what was included in them. A relative told us, “I am not aware of any care plan, but I have a clear idea of what is happening.” Care plans did not contain information about people’s preferences for their care and support needs. A recent quality audit had identified this, and the registered manager told us there were plans in place to review care plans. Staff had a good knowledge of people’s preferences and could describe these when speaking about people. They told us they got to know people well and were able to offer people person centred care.

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.People received continuity of care through the electronic system in place which was used to record the care people received. However, staff were not recording at the times people had their care. There was a risk people’s care delivery was documented at incorrect times due to a lack of handheld devices to upload records at the time the care was delivered. Partners told us the provider ensured information about people’s needs was shared with relevant professionals including district nurses, social workers and dieticians.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People had communication needs assessed, and plans were in place to ensure communication needs were met. Staff were observed following people’s communication plans during the inspection and could describe how they used they changed the way they communicated to support people. We saw there were picture menus in place to support people with making choices about their meals.

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 were aware of any agreed changes to their care plan. People and their relatives felt able to raise any concerns and understood who to speak with. A person told us, “If I had any concerns, I would talk to the team leader, but I haven’t had any concerns.” The registered manager told us they sought feedback from people about their care as part of a monthly audit process which reviewed peoples care experience each month to check on the quality of the care they received and make any changes. There was a complaints policy in place and all complaints were investigated and responded to with learning shared. The provider told us they also used a series of surveys to find out people’s views. We saw compliments about the home, the care people received, and the staff had been received from people’s relatives. The feedback was shared with staff to improve the service.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People were supported to access care and support when they needed it and adjustments were made to support people. Partners told us they felt the staff supported people to access services when needed and gave examples of specialist input people had received from other health professionals such as Speech and language therapists and tissue viability nurses when needed.

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 had a policy in place to ensure they were meeting the legal requirements and promoting and protecting the equality and human rights of people using the service, making reasonable adjustments. The policy focussed on promoting autonomy, independence and respect. Staff focussed on ensuring people were treated respectfully and supported people to maintain their independence. Protected characteristics were considered by staff providing care, however care plans did not always have the detail included, for example details about peoples sexuality, religion and culture were not included in care plans.

People’s individual preferences and wishes for planning for the future were not always included in their care plans. There was nobody receiving end of life care at the home at the time of the inspection. Staff could give examples of when they had supported people at the end of their life and how they worked to ensure people had their individual needs and preferences met. There was an end-of-life care plan in place for people, however these lacked detail about individual preferences and wishes for the future.