Maria 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 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 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.

Each person had a care plan in place. Care plans were highly personalised and clearly reflected each person’s individual needs, preferences, routines, likes and dislikes, enabling staff to understand what mattered to them.

Relatives told us staff knew people well. One relative told us, “They [staff] listed all [person's] likes and dislikes, and [their] need for a daily walk, always a daily walk, not for [their] physical wellbeing but for [their] welfare and need to belong.” Another relative told us staff encouraged people to do as much for themselves as they can. They told us, “The carers will explain and will accept [person’s] choices, sometimes [they] will let them shave [them]… and sometimes [they] will try to shave themselves.”

Staff told us they supported people in person centred way. One member of staff told us, “Dementia affects everybody differently… I try to follow their normal routines and understand their individual preferences.” Another member of staff told us “I am committed to providing compassionate, respectful and person-centred care. I promote residents’ dignity, privacy, choice and independence [and] follow their individual care plans.”
 

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.

The poor management of staff roasters meant people were at risk of not receiving care when they wanted it. This limited people's choice on when they had support from staff. Daily records did not record if people had requested to get out of bed or what support they had received with moving position.

However, people were supported by staff who were familiar to them,one relative told us the home had a “family feel.” All relatives who gave feedback told us there was consistency of staff and told us it was important to their family member. One relative said “that (staff continuity) is very important to [person].”

The provider told us, “Our relationship with our local GP practice is a significant strength. A GP conducts weekly on-site visits, enabling proactive health monitoring, timely medication reviews, and early intervention for emerging clinical concerns.”

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

Relatives told us they had regular communication with the provider and registered manager. Comments included, “They [registered manager] always phone or text us to let us know what is happening” and “We are always phoned up and kept up to date on how [person] is.”

The provider told us, “When sharing information with external professionals, for example, when a resident is transferred to hospital we always include a clear summary of their communication needs in our hospital transfer pack. This ensures continuity of accessible care beyond our walls and reduces the risk of the residents’ needs being overlooked in an unfamiliar setting.”
 

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.

We received mixed feedback from relatives about how they viewed communication within the home. One relative who felt communication was good told us, “We have always found the carers and management to be receptive to anything we ask or say.” One person told us “If I had a problem here, I can chat to any of them [staff] really.” However, one person who was less positive told us, “The building work has been going on for a while, we don’t know everything about the work.” A relative described a concern they had with their family member’s drinking and told us “I keep mentioning it” when referring to an alternative drinking cup. They told us no changes had happened to date.

The provider had a complaints policy and had received complaints which they had responded to.
 

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People did not always have equitable access to the care and support they required. Staffing arrangements did not consistently reflect people’s individually assessed needs, including requirements for two trained staff to support transfers and repositioning. During periods when only one staff member was rostered to work at the home, people with greater mobility and pressure-care needs may not have been able to access safe and timely support. The provider had not demonstrated they effectively identified and addressed these barriers to ensure everyone received appropriate care when they needed 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.

Care records for 2 people did not demonstrate planned repositioning was completed, despite repeated observations of redness. The provider had not identified or addressed how staffing, training and competency shortfalls could disproportionately affect people with greater mobility and pressure-care needs. This increased the risk people with more complex needs would experience poorer outcomes, including avoidable harm and deterioration in their skin health.
 

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.

Each person had the opportunity to discuss end of life choices with staff. Where people had discussed their choices, these were clearly recorded in care plans.