Strode Park House

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 61 (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. Relatives told us they had to initiate any involvement in care planning. One relative said “We must always instigate meetings. What we would like is a proactive review of process which involves the families. The funding is reviewed annually. It’s always down to us to interrogate them such as (person) not going out. I think activities should be discussed with families. Every meeting we have had has been at our request.”

People’s choices and preferences were not always recorded in their care plans or how to involve people in activities they might be interested in. People raised concerns at resident meetings about staff shortages which had affected them, such as not being supported to get up in time to engage in activities. Other people mentioned they did not want the visiting cat to come into their bedroom, staff told them to close their bedroom door, there was no discussion about what action may be more appropriate. People had no choice but to close their doors if they did not want the cat in their room, there was a risk people’s movements around the service could be impacted, if they could not open their door independently.

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. Before the inspection, concerns had been raised by healthcare professionals about staff practice around feeding tubes with the local authority, they had not raised the concerns with the service. The manager has worked with the healthcare professionals to rebuild their relationship, which has now improved.

Relatives told us continuity of staff, and a core group of staff was essential as their family member had complex needs. One relative told us, “We have asked for a smaller group of carers so they can build a relationship and help build a routine with them and encourage them to go out whenever possible.”

We reviewed the allocation of staff, which is completed by a lead carer. Staff were allocated to work in different units, including the lead carers, over their shifts during the week. This meant people would not always receive care from the same staff who knew them well.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Some information had not always been provided in a way people could understand, for example, the minutes of resident meetings. This is an area which could be improved.

There were pictorial displays around the service giving people information about the service and menus.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result. People or their representative had not always been involved in decision making, for example, about moving rooms. A relative told us they had been informed about a possible change of room but had not been updated since and did not know if it was still happening.

Resident meeting minutes showed people had raised concerns, such as the shower room on the new wing being out of order and the hot water being cool. This had not been resolved after a month and staff were not aware the issue continued.

People told us they were happy to speak to the manager and thought they would resolve their concerns. Relatives told us they knew how to raise concerns and would speak to the nurse if there were any issues.

The provider made sure that people could access the building and equipment they needed, when they needed it. People had access to the equipment they needed to be supported safely. People’s rooms had ceiling hoists so they could be moved from their bed safely. People had access to shower trolleys and wet rooms to support their personal hygiene. The service had wide corridors, and the doors were wide to allow large wheelchair access. People were observed moving around the service in their electric wheelchairs, they had access to the garden and all areas of the service.

People had access to the dentist and optician who visited the service and provided support to people when they required it.

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. People’s care plans did not contain information about people’s protected characteristics. There was no guidance about how to support people with their cultural or spiritual needs. Staff had not recognised how people may be discriminated against when accessing care and support.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed choices and decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. However, not all the information from, for example, people's anticipatory care plans which had been discussed with health professionals was recorded in people's care plans. People’s care plans contained a section for end of life care, but only minimal information recorded about if people wanted to go into hospital if they were unwell, their spiritual needs and preferences about how they wanted to receive their care.