Sebright House 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 inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 57 (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.

Care plans were task focussed and not always person centred. People’s care plans did not consistently reflect their mental, emotional and social needs. Care plans did not provide enough information on how to support people, considering the complexities of their ongoing medical conditions. Most people and relatives told us they had not been involved in any care reviews, so people’s voice was not included in how their care was recorded and delivered.

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.

Staff worked with other healthcare professionals to ensure people’s needs were met. One external healthcare professional told us staff were efficient when responding to any requests for support and commented, “I believe that the staff and manager work collaboratively to improve the outcomes for the residents.” The manager told us they would review people’s needs and signpost relatives to other agencies to ensure they had the funding in place they were eligible to.

The provider did not use agency staff which ensured people received support from a consistent staff team.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Prior to and during our inspection we received some concerns that there were barriers to effective communication. Many of the staff providing care for people did not have English as their first language. The provider had not put support mechanisms in place to ensure staff had the best possible opportunity to develop the skills they needed to communicate effectively with people, relatives and other healthcare professionals. The failure to provide this level of support increased risks to people where accurate information needed to be quickly communicated about people’s needs, for example in emergency situations. One relative commented, “Some newer staff seem to have communication problems with residents. A resident asked about a delivery they were expecting but they (staff) didn’t understand.”

The manager told us that where people had specific communication needs, information was provided in an accessible format. This included through larger print and translation services.

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 and relatives were not always involved in care plan reviews and we received mixed feedback from relatives about whether they felt involved and listened to. One relative told us, “I have no concerns about [Name’s] care. I have never raised a concern or complaint but if I needed to, I would see the manager. The only problem at the moment is they are between managers.” Another relative said, “Anything that is needed, I just raise it, and it is dealt with.” However, 1 relative told us they had shared concerns about difficulties with communication and commented, “It is improving but generally we still have to ask. If there is a problem they tell us, it is just the way they tell us, it is not very clear.”

The new manager recognised the importance of involving people and their relatives in reviews to ensure care continued to be reflective of people’s changing needs. They acknowledged this was an area for improvement and commented, “With the care plans, I don’t think there is involvement with everyone."

People and relatives were invited to give feedback about the care provided through meetings and annual quality assurance questionnaires. Where people needed support to ensure their voice was heard, the manager said they would make a referral through the social work team for an independent advocate.

The complaints policy was shared with people in the service user guide when they started to use the service.

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

Communication care plans did not always contain clear guidance for staff about how people expressed their needs when they were not able to do so verbally. For example, 1 care plan stated the person could not express their needs but gave no further information. The area support manager said, “It (care plan) should detail things like, if I rock it means I need the toilet. If I hold my hand on my chest, it means I’m in pain. Staff do know our residents but if there was something like Covid again, temporary staff haven’t got any information.” This meant people might not be able to access support when they needed it due to communication barriers.

We did identify some good practice to ensure people had access to support and treatment when they needed it. For example, staff monitored people’s vital signs such as their temperature and blood pressure so they could identify any changes in people’s physical health which required external healthcare support. Healthcare professionals visited the home regularly and emergency healthcare support was requested when needed.

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 and their relatives did not express any concerns about their outcomes or their experiences of the service. One person told us, “I honestly don’t know if my care could be improved. I have a home here and nothing to be improved really.” A relative told us their family member had previously been living in another service and described better outcomes for the person living at Sebright House Care Home. They explained, “What I see here is good care, [Name] is not on medications anymore. I discussed it with the doctor, and he agreed to take him off them.”

Staff completed training so they understood their role in promoting equality and diversity in the home.

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.

Care plans contained some information about people’s wishes and needs for their end-of-life care. However, the plans were very clinical and did not always reflect people’s religious, cultural or personal wishes for their final days.

Staff worked with other healthcare professionals to ensure people remained comfortable and pain free. Relatives were signposted to other agencies and organisations for guidance and support.