Applecroft Residential 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 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 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.

Feedback indicated people felt supported in an individualised way. A person was very positive about their care and said, “I can’t praise it highly enough.” A relative told us, “They know (relative) really well.”

Staff provided examples where they worked in partnershipwith people to respond to their needs and preferences. For example, one person was worried about accessing their call bell so staff agreed to make regular checks. Another person preferred staff not to assist them with their toileting needs, and staff respected this decision.

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 registered manager worked closely with health and social care professionals to meet people’s needs. They responded to urgent situations and worked with commissioners and other stakeholders to ensure people received continuity of care when needed.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The provider had an accessible information standard policy. People’s communication needs were assessed and included in their care plans, detailing the support they required. People could access their care plans and copies were available to relatives with the person’s consent. Information could be provided in alternative formats.

However, some information was not provided in a suitable way. For example, a 4-week menu was displayed which was in small print and was not easily accessible to people. There was no information available to inform people whether any entertainment or activities were planned. The registered manager told us they would introduce a white board to provide more accessible information to people.
 

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.

The provider sought feedback from people and their relatives regularly, either through meetings or surveys. The service was small and the registered manager had frequent contact and discussions with people to gather feedback and had built effective relationships with people.

There was a system in place to ensure complaints were responded to in line with the provider’s policy and procedure. People told us they felt able to raise any concerns should they need to. The registered manager listened to feedback or concerns and took action where necessary.

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

There was some signage to guide people around the building and people's bedrooms were personalised. Some aspects of the building needed refurbishment and was not fully in line with guidance related to a dementia friendly building. There was an accessible garden area and staff supported people to access this as they wished.

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.

Feedback indicated staff advocated on behalf of people and ensured they had access to appropriate support and treatment. We received positive feedback about the way staff supported people, especially those with mental health needs and the service took an inclusive and individualised approach. There were examples where staff had made adjustments to support people’s experiences, such as supporting a person to move bedrooms, as it better suited their hobby.

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.

A visiting professional described the service as “Top-notch” when it came to providing palliative care to people. They felt staff always aimed to support people as their needs changed, to enable them to remain at the service wherever possible. Care plans included information about people’s end of life wishes, which considered people’s choices and preferences during this time.