Archived: St Leonards Rest 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 service met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 service 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’s care and support was person-centred. Care was coordinated to maximise independence and planned to incorporate people’s choices and preferences. For example, people could choose when they woke up and went to bed as well as choosing what to eat. The provider had a fitness trainer in the service 3 times a week and this was popular amongst people. We observed people engaging with the exercises and 1 person dancing to the music. A staff member told us, “We know all their care needs and look after them as individuals and do whatever we can to make them comfortable.” People and relativestold us visitors where welcome without any restrictions.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. People’s choice was evidenced throughout the inspection. People, their relatives and a healthcare professional told us people had access to appropriate healthcare when required and that staff fully engaged with the process. One relative told us, “[Person’s name] was wobbly when they first moved in and has been there just over a year, doing gym lessons 3 times a week and they have improved so much.”

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People had access to, where required, easy read policies. The manager told us information could be provided in large print where required.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. One person told us, “If I needed to complain I would write a letter to the provider, it has never occurred. I get to make choices about everything.” Relatives and friends told us the manager was always available and approachable if they needed to speak to her and she responded promptly. One relative told us, “They have always been responsive and acted preventively, [Person’s name] was unwell but said they didn’t need a doctor, but after explaining everything to them, my relative agreed.” There had been no recent complaints at the service, the provider told us how they would ensure lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. Staff told us they could raise concerns with the manager and there was a no blame culture.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The provider had care plan summaries to share with medical professionals when required which helped to ensure people received the appropriate care in a timely manner. Staff accompanied people to health appointments when needed to ensure people's needs were understood.

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. Staff treated people as individuals and adjusted care and support to meet individuals’ needs and preferences. The provider and staff gave us examples of how people’s outcomes had been improved since living at the service.

People were not 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. The manager told us end of life care plans would be put in place when the GP stopped prescribing medicines. This would not always be enough time to ensure people were able to make informed decisions. We spoke with the provider about this who told us, these conversations are held informally with people, but they had not been recorded. However, 1 person who had been classed as end of life but had rallied, did have an end-of-life plan in place which showed there was a good escalation treatment plan in place. The provider said they would put these plans in place for all people.