Speirs 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 remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (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 they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. People told us that staff knew what was important to them, commenting, “It took me a while to settle, but [staff] have got to know me – my likes and dislikes.” People’s care records were person-centred and provided individual information about people, including their life histories, hobbies andhow they wanted to be cared for. People were provided with opportunities to discuss their preferences for food, gender of staff for personal care and support with cultural and/ or religious care needs. To support people’s wishes, we observed a staff member asking a person if they preferred a female carer to support them going to the bathroom.

Systems and processes in place ensured continuity of the care being provided for people. The management team told us they only used permanent and bank staff to cover the rota so that people were supported by staff who knew them well. Staff had access to support and advice during the out of hours to ensure they took the necessary actions in emergency situations.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Staff told us how they supported people to interact, with a staff member commenting, "There is 1 resident, who can't hear. We use a board to communicate, and they respond. [Name of the person] finds hard to find words, we help her to express herself by asking questions.” People’s care records included information regarding the support people required with communication. The service ensured that people had access to information in formats they could understand, including pictures of staff and activities to help people to plan their care and free time.

During our visit we saw a lack of involvement between people living at the home, including people eating in silence at the same table. The management team told us they will discuss and look for solutions as a team, aiming to help people to engage more in social conversation.

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 and their relatives told us they felt confident to raise concerns if they had any. People’s comments included, “I would speak with the [registered] manager if there was a problem, she is a sensible woman” and “Things have improved since I said something. I can’t remember who I told now, it would have been a nurse or the manager.” Any information of concern reported to the management team was appropriately recorded and investigated, taking the necessary actions to address the complaint raised.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The home acted in people’s best interests advocating on their behalf as needed. A family member told us, “When my relative’s funding came to an end, [name of the registered manager] was able to engage with social services to discuss continued funding. It was with her input that this was agreed. We had to argue that this was the best place for them as they had been here for a number of years.” Advocate services were arranged by the service to support people where they didn’t have families involved to advocate on their behalf.

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. Family members felt welcomed and included in people’s lives. A person told us, “There is a corner where you can sit if you have guests.” A family member commented, “I often have lunch with my relative.” People and staff members were encouraged to share their personal stories in the service’s ‘Newsletter’ aiming to improve the quality of care by enabling personalised approaches.

Where people wished to discuss their end of life wishes, this information was included in people's care records such as preference for prayers, place of death and do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions.Although records showed that most people had their DNACPR decisions reviewed in the last year, there wasn’t a provider policy in place to guide the service regarding the planning, recording and review frequency of the DNACPR decisions.

Records showed the service worked closely with the healthcare professionals specialising in end-of-life care to support people receiving palliative care. They also took part in promoting the ‘Gold Standards Framework’ which is an improvement programme for end-of-life care. Although we found that staff were not provided with the training to support their skills and knowledge for the end-of-life care provision at the service, there were no concerns raised regarding this aspect of care at the home.

Prompt actions had been taken by the provider to address the above concerns, making sure their staff were appropriately trained and had access to the policy for managing people’s DNACPR decisions.