The Chimneys 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 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 planned their care with staff either independently or with support from their relatives. Relatives told us this helped to ensure their family member's care plans reflected their values, preferences and goals. Staff told us they were not allowed to provide care for people until they had read their care plans, so staff understood what mattered to people before they began to provide care to them. Staff told us people's care plans gave them enough information to know how to tailor the assistance they provided to people. For example, by offering people a range of options, based on people’s known preferences. People's care plans considered their physical, cultural and religious, and well-being and needs. Advice provided by other health and social care professionals was reflected in people's care plans, to guide staff on the most appropriate and safest way to provide support. People's care plans were reviewed over time and promptly as their needs changed. Where appropriate, people, relatives and health and social care professionals contributed to care planning reviews.

People were provided with the care they wanted and could live the lives they wished. Relatives told us there was good continuity of staff, who worked in flexible ways, so people were supported to spend time in the community and with their families. Staff gave us examples showing how they supported people to access things they enjoyed doing in the community. This included engaging with local groups so people could attend dementia singing activities with other care homes. Other health and social care professionals told us staff worked well with them and colleagues.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Relatives were positive about the way their family members communication needs were met. One relative highlighted staff always gave their family member time to think about choices offered, so they were supported to make their own decisions where possible. Staff gave us examples showing how they adapted how they communicated with people. These included use of communication cards, google translator and by offering to make some documentation in a larger font. We saw key information was supported by photographs to make them accessible. For example, minutes of residents’ meetings.

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 were encouraged to make suggestions about developing their care further during their reviews and at residents’ meetings. Relatives told us senior staff encouraged them to raise any concerns about the care provided. One relative told us they had raised a concern with senior staff, which was promptly investigated and appropriately resolved. Staff were confident if they escalated any complaints on behalf of people to senior staff these would be robustly investigated. Records showed us any concerns or complaints were appropriately investigated and promptly resolved.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People’s protected characteristics were considered at all stages of their care at the home. Staff gave examples of adjustments they had made to how they supported people. This included collaborative working with external health and social care professionals and advocating for people, to ensure they had access to specialist support required to reduce their anxiety, promote their physical health and meet their communication needs. This helped people to maintain their quality of life.

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 experienced reduced anxiety because staff considered and understood their needs, recognised when they needed support and promptly provided the care people wanted. Staff gave examples showing how people with physical disabilities had experienced improved health outcomes, mobility and independence because of the support delivered.

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. One relative explained their family members end of life wishes had been considered when their needs had originally been assessed at the home. Another relative told us, “Anything we asked for, they [staff] were accommodating.” The relative said because of compassion and quality of care which had been provided to their family member at the end of their life, “[Person’s name] was definitely looked after well by the staff here. I can't fault it. [Person’s name] was happy here.”