St Johns House

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 outstanding. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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 mostly made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment, and staff responded to people’s needs and preferences in a timely way. Care plans were detailed, person centred and reflected people’s life histories, preferences and changing needs. Records showed these were reviewed when people’s health or wellbeing changed. People and relatives gave largely positive feedback about the care they received. One relative told us their family member’s care plan was changed promptly when they asked for more frequent showers, and this was implemented without delay. People felt staff knew them well and supported their independence where possible.

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 mostly made sure people experienced coordinated care that met their needs. Records showed effective working with health and social care professionals, including GPs and community nursing teams. Visiting professionals spoke positively about communication with staff and described timely referrals and follow-up. Care plans and daily records supported continuity of care and provided staff with clear guidance. People’s nutritional needs were met, with specialist diets catered for and positive observations of mealtime support.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The provider mostly made sure people and relatives had the information they needed to understand their care. People told us they knew how to ask for support and felt comfortable speaking to staff. Records showed consent was obtained appropriately and people were involved in decisions about their care and information could be provided in a wide variety of formats.

The registered manager did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Largely, the service listened to people and involved them in decisions about their care. People and relatives told us staff were kind, approachable and generally responsive. One person told us, “I would speak to a member of staff. I know the ones who have the most say.” ‘Resident meetings’ were held, and people’s feedback was recorded. However, some people told us they did not feel listened to and that leaders did not always take their views seriously. Some people told us they had raised concerns but experienced delays in receiving responses, seeing meaningful change or no action was taken at all. One person said when asked if they felt confident, they would be listened to if they raised a complaint, “I don’t know. I don’t think they would listen.” These issues were followed up after the inspection by the provider, but routine monitoring systems had not consistently identified dissatisfaction beforehand.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The provider mostly made sure people could access care and support in a way that met their individual needs. The environment was accessible, and people’s rooms were personalised and adapted to support comfort and independence. People were supported to access healthcare services, and professionals described good relationships with the service.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. The provider mostly made sure people had positive and fair experiences of care. Many people and relatives described feeling safe, well cared for and treated with kindness and respect. Visiting professionals consistently described the service as caring and well organised. Activities and outings were offered, and the provider monitored participation to identify lower engagement. However, some people told us they were not always able to access activities that met their preferences, particularly 1 to 1 or in room activities. One person told us they experienced isolation due to the lack of suitable 1 to 1 activities. These concerns were addressed after inspection, but systems had not fully ensured equitable access for everyone.

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. The service mostly supported people to plan for the future. Care plans reflected people’s changing needs and were reviewed following changes in health or wellbeing. People benefitted from advanced care plans which explored their end of life wishes and preferences.