The Old Rectory 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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People told us they liked living at the home because they were happy with their lives and with the care and support received. One person told us, “I like it here; they have brought me out of myself. I feel better being here.”

Staff knew people well and understood the value of this. One staff member told us, “We spend time with the resident and that’s how we really learn about them and what we need to do or help them with.” The staff member went on to tell us, “The care plans give you information about how the residents like things done and what they need. This is good when the residents first come before we have time to sit and get to know them.”

Care plans were person-centred and contained information about people’s needs and preferences.

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.

Staff worked with external professionals to ensure care was well-coordinated and continuous. One healthcare professional told us, “The residents and staff are given sufficient time to talk to me and seek my advice if necessary. I have every confidence in the staff to keep me updated with the requirements of the residents and report anything that should be brought to my attention.”

The registered manager explained they fostered good relationships with external professionals. They told us “I've never had a concern or issue with any professional people. In fact, a lot of them have said they love coming here.”

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

People’s communication needs were recorded in their care plans. For example, if the person used hearing aids. People had access to the information they needed, the registered manger explained how they would adapt information to meet people’s needs, if required.

During our visit we observed staff communicating effectively with people. We observed the cook using pictorial prompts to support people to choose what they would like to eat from the menu.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

People generally had no complaints; however, they did not always feel involved or listened to. One person said “I don’t have any concerns. I’ve not had to make a complaint.” whilst another person shared “They don’t ask my opinion, and we don’t have meetings.”

The manager explained that resident/relatives’ meetings and feedback surveys were not held, as they preferred to gather feedback during 1:1 interaction with people.

People and relatives knew how to make a complaint should they wish to do so.

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

People were supported to take part in activities within and outside of the care home. People told us, “We have had singers in, I enjoy that” and “We went to karaoke one week and they take us out sometimes.” The garden had been paved to ensure it was accessible for anyone who wished to use it.

The registered manager understood how to access specialist support should this be required and had developed links with the local health and social care teams.

Care plans documented important information such as people’s preferred language.

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.

Relatives felt their loved ones received good, quality care. One relative told us, “[Name] is in much better health since being here.” The relative went on to describe how their loved one’s personal care needs were being met to a much better standard since living at the home.

Staff had received training in equality and diversity and demonstrated a commitment to promoting people’s rights and choices when supporting them.

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.

If people chose, they were supported to complete a Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) plan. ReSPECT plans are used to document a person’s wishes for their clinical care in emergency situations, where the person would not be able to make decisions or express their wishes.

The registered manager understood the importance of discussing people’s wishes for the end of their life. They told us, “The conversation is important. We usually have the family sat there and discuss it together in a sensitive way.”