Shaftesbury New Court Place

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 the last inspection we rated this key question as good. At this inspection this key question has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (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.

People looked well dressed, comfortable and in accordance with their preferences.

We reviewed records and found care was delivered in line with people’s assessed needs.

Care plans were personalised and captured most people’s needs, and preferences.

Most people felt their needs were met in a way they liked. A person said, “I love living here. The staff are helpful.” Most relatives told us they were happy with the care provided. A relative said, “They look after my [person] well.” Another relative said, “Overall, NCP provides a friendly, safe place for my [person] and addresses their needs well and also provides them with a homely environment (very important). Some staff do go ‘the extra mile’.”

Relatives for 1 person living in the home were not satisfied with their care. There was an ongoing complaint between the management team, a person and their relatives that we will continue to review outside of the inspection process.

We spoke with staff, and they were knowledgeable about the people they were supporting and the support they required. A staff member said, “Care is person centred.”

The registered manager carried out spot checks and supervision of staff to help ensure they worked in a person-centred way.

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.

People with varying care needs were living at the service. Staff worked with visiting health and social care professionals to ensure the support met their needs.

There was access to health and social care professionals appropriately. We saw health care professionals attending on the day of our visit.

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

People told us they had access to information as they needed it. Relatives were mostly positive about communication from the home. A relative said, “We are involved to a certain extent, perhaps a little more feedback would be nice.” Another relative said, “The home keeps informed of any issues.”

Information was available and provided through meetings, newsletters, notice boards and handovers. Information could also be provided in different formats, including pictorial, where needed.

There were resident and relative meetings. Relatives were also in regular contact with staff as part of people’s care plan development and reviews but also events and activities at the home.

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.

People told us they felt they could speak up or make a complaint if they needed to. A person told us they had something to raise with the manager. We asked if they would like us to support with that, but they assured us they were able to speak to them. Most relatives told us they were involved and listened to. A relative said, “We normally address any concerns to the staff when we visit.” One relative felt their complaints were not fully addressed or taken seriously. We discussed this with the management team, reviewed records and liaised with supporting professionals. We found that there had been ongoing input from the management team, including provider level and ongoing meetings to find a resolution.

Complaints raised were investigated and had an outcome recorded. Information about how to make a complaint was displayed in the home. There was an ongoing complaint between the management team, a person and their relatives that we will continue to review outside of the inspection process.

There was a record of resident meetings. These covered subjects including staffing, updates in the home and meals. People were given an opportunity to share feedback and their response was noted. There was a ‘You said, We did’ document which set out how the team would address anything raised by people living in the service. There were 1-1 relative meetings with the management team to review people’s needs and care plans and have an opportunity to raise anything they needed to.

The home had a suggestion box for staff. This was checked before staff meetings.

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

People and most relatives told us they received the care and medical support when needed.

The management team had systems in place in the home which helped ensure they had an overview of care and support people received. This was to help give them assurances everyone had the support needed and opportunities, for example access to health and support services, care and social engagement and activities, were available to everyone. However, some staff felt the support people received was not shared equally. This was mainly due to funding for 1-1 hours and people’s allocations. However, reassessment of needs and a review of care plans was needed to ensure these hours were used to consistently benefit people. A staff member said, “some residents are more fortunate both financially and with social packages. This can impact some residents where they are not so financially fortunate. All residents are treated equally, and New Court knows how to enjoy a good party all residents, family and staff engage.”

There were systems in place to ensure people had access to external health and social care professionals, including out of hours or in an emergency. These included tissue viability nurses, Community Learning Disability teams, GPs and Dentists so all could access these services and other support services. Professionals told us staff engaged appropriately with them.

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.

People with a varying needs, backgrounds and cultures were supported by the home. They told us they felt supported. Most staff told us they were confident people were treated equally and as individuals. The provider had policies in place to help ensure people were treated equally. There were opportunities for people to give feedback about their care and support.

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.

People were involved in decisions and planning in relation to moving into the home to help ensure their plans met their wishes. Reviews were completed to help ensure information was still accurate.

Life goals, aspirations and opportunities were discussed and planned for. The registered manager told us, “Recent examples include educational trips to develop independence and community skills, such as learning to travel safely by train and shopping trips which encourage individuals to identify what they need and make choices about their purchases. We have also supported people we support to attend a funeral for a former resident of New Court Place, following their expressed wishes to say goodbye and offer their best wishes to the family. Within the service, activities have included painting canvases to decorate New Court Place, watching England football matches as a shared social activity, and sensory activities tailored to individual preferences, including music and sand-based activities. We also recently hosted a filming day with Pam Rhodes for a short production relating to leaving legacy gifts, providing another opportunity for engagement and involvement within the service. Within the last few days, a person has requested that we make contact with the local Catholic Church to reinstate visits to provide holy communion for those people who are Catholic. An email has been sent to the priest asking for assistance to reinstate these visits.”

We were informed there was also a learning academy which 3 people were currently using to gain skills in key areas.

Care plans included end of life care information in those we reviewed. There was a record of information relevant to people’s current needs. Many stating the person was not currently receiving end of life care this had not yet been planned for. Consideration was needed about when this completed to ensure should a person’s needs change, there was a plan in place to support them.