Archived: Hilbre Manor EMI 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 changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 50 (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. We found that people did not always receive person centred care, as care plans did not contain the relevant information regarding people’s needs, preferences and wishes. Care plans were not consistently accurate or up to date, and therefore did not fully capture people’s physical, mental, emotional, or social needs, including those associated with protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Care records lacked evidence people, or their relatives were regularly involved in planning and making shared decisions about their care and support, limiting the ability to provide care that was truly centred around their needs. One staff member was able to tell us a person’s favourite song and what activities they liked to do and we observed them utilising this knowledge to engage with them.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. Processes did not consistently ensure continuity of care, support, and treatment for people. Care records identified decisions about people’s care were sometimes made without consulting other relevant agencies, resulting in care that was not always coordinated or responsive.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. There was no evidence information was being provided in an accessible format for people. Staff did not have any training in relation to meetings people’s communication needs and care plans did not guide staff on how best to support people who would require additional methods of communication. When Mental Capacity Assessments had been completed there was no evidence information was provided in an alternative way. There was limited evidence of information sharing between staff teams.

The provider did not always have a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. Lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. The processes in place to provide a good learning culture were not effective. We did not see evidence of regular supervision for staff to ensure positive feedback was received and any shared learning provided

The provider did not always have a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. Lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. The processes in place to provide a good learning culture were not effective. We did not see evidence of regular supervision for staff to ensure positive feedback was received and any shared learning provided

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. We reviewed one person’s care plan whose first language was not English, the condition recorded on their care plan was to encourage/remind them to speak in English. We observed from people's care records that they were not supported to achieve meaningful outcomes. Whilst some outcomes for people were recorded, these were not monitored or maintained to ensure people's care was improving over time.

The provider did not always have a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. Lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. The processes in place to provide a good learning culture were not effective. We did not see evidence of regular supervision for staff to ensure positive feedback was received and any shared learning provided