Teamcare Limited t/a Highcliffe 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 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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People’s care plans did not fully reflect their physical, mental, emotional and social needs; and had not always been kept up-to-date when their needs changed (see the ‘Assessing needs’ section of this report for more information). This meant we could not be assured care and support was always delivered in line with people’s current needs.

Records did not evidence people or their relatives were consulted when people’s needs changed, to ensure they understood their options and were fully involved in planning care and support.

However, from observations and conversations with people, relatives and staff it was evident care delivered was person-centred, and not task led. People received different levels of support dependent upon their individual 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.

The provider ensured care was flexible and joined up for people. Staff supported people to attend appointments when relatives were not available to support them, and facilitated visits from healthcare partners at the home. During the inspection, an optician was visiting to review people’s eyesight.

Several staff working at the home were long-standing having worked there for many years. There was a small staffing team, and absences were covered between them to reduce the use of agency staff. This meant continuity of care was good.

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

The provider had a service user guide which gave people clear and transparent information about the home, the services provided and any associated charges; in line with consumer rights best practice.

Staff could explain how they would adjust their communication styles to meet people’s communication needs. For example, speaking on their preferred side for those hard of hearing or observing for facial expressions and using hand gestures for those with limited understanding and/or who could not communicate verbally.

Several staff members had not had training in General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) so we could not be assured they fully understood data protection and confidentially requirements.

Following feedback, the registered manager assured us additional GDPR training had been planned.

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 ensured people and relatives had the opportunity to provide feedback and understood how to complain. An annual survey was carried out, and meetings were held which people and their relatives could attend. The service user guide included details about the provider’s complaints procedure.

The registered manager explained they had an ‘open door’ policy and encouraged people and relatives to raise concerns as and when these arose. A relatives said, “[The registered manager] is approachable.” A person living at the home added, “I have met [registered manager], she is very nice and often pops in and asks how I am doing or if I need anything.”

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

The provider ensured the environment was accessible, and reasonable adjustments had been made to reduce physical barriers to care. For example, handrails, hoists and ramps were in place, and people had access to equipment such as walking frames and wheelchairs.

The registered manager confirmed arrangements were made to ensure managerial support was available out of hours or in an emergency.

Information about activities and meals was displayed and regularly updated, but there was a lack of pictorial signage to help those living with dementia orientate themselves.

The provider 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 an equal opportunities policy in place, and we received no information during our inspection which may have indicated people had been unfairly treated or discriminated against.

Staff had access to equality and diversity training to support their understanding of discrimination and the inequalities people living at the home may face. However, several staff had not completed the training.

The provider did not ensure people were always 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.

Death and dying care plans were not always in place, including for those with a terminal diagnosis or who were receiving end of life care. This meant we could not be assured people’s wishes were fully considered, or care was delivered in line with their needs and preferences.

Several staff had not completed end of life training, or their refresher training had not been completed within the appropriate timeframes.

Staff could explain what good end of life care looked like and spoke with compassion when discussing the subject. The home worked closely with district nurses, GP’s and the local hospice when people’s condition deteriorated.