Turret Villa Retirement 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.

People received person-centred care which was responsive to their needs. There were processes in place to ensure the continuity of people’s care when their needs changed. Information was available to people in formats they could understand. People experienced equitable care and were able to share their thoughts on the service and how it was run. People received good quality care at the end of their lives.

This service scored 75 (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.

Staff clearly knew people and their needs well. Care plans were generally person-centred, although there were some aspects that could be improved upon. We shared these with the registered manager. People told us staff listened to their wishes. They also told us they did not have copies of their care plans. One person told us “I do feel I can sit with staff and discuss my care with staff, and I don’t have any complaints” and “I do have a care plan but I don’t have a copy”.

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 received person-centred care training and shadowing ensured they had the right approach with each person. People had access to community health practitioners, such as, GPs, Dentists, District Nurses and other professionals when needed. Care records evidenced appointments and visits.

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

Most aspects of care records were accurate and up to date, including information in a format that was appropriate to individual communication needs. People told us communication was good between themselves and the registered manager. There was clear signage through the building to help people navigate around the service.

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.

A process was in place for dealing with formal complaints. Low-level concerns including expressions of dissatisfaction from relatives and feedback from staff was not always recorded. This meant it was unclear what action had been taken to address these issues in a timely manner to prevent and mitigate these being escalated into formal complaints. People and relatives told us the service listened to them, and they felt confident to report anything. The service had received many examples of positive feedback in the form of thank you cards or emails.

There were regular resident meetings, where residents could raise concerns or request changes. When asked about the meetings one person told us, “Once a month [Staff name] chairs it and we discuss food and general care etc and can speak up and it is listened to.” Other people told us that they felt listened to and would speak up about diet choices which would then be included. Another person told us, “I do feel listened to.”

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

Staff understood the importance of ensuring people had access to the right health and social care services. They helped them to do this through well planned and documented care.Staff spoke to family members also to gain further information if people could not share this information themselves.

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 registered manager ensured staff understood people’s needs and preferences and put the right processes in place to support people and staff.People told us that staff got to know them and supported them as they needed.

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.

At the time of the inspection, one person was receiving end of life care. Staff had received appropriate training, and guidance was in place as needed. People’s preferences around end-of-life care were recorded and acted on.