Archived: St Anne's Community Services - Smithies Moor Lane

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 46 (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. During our observations, we noted positive interactions between staff and people but did not observe people taking part in any meaningful activities. We were informed people went out into the community throughout the week, but where and when was decided by a designated staff member. The concerns were reflected in people’s care records as there were lots of gaps around activities, and sometimes activities such as watching TV or listening to music was recorded as an activity for the day. This shortfall had also been highlighted in our previous inspection.

The staff team made sure that people could access the care, support and nursing treatment they needed when required.Staff contacted medical professionals where there were changes or concerns to people’s health. Staff knew people’s needs well and what to look out for that would suggest concerns around their health and wellbeing. However, care records were not consistent and there were lots of gaps, for example in people’s bowel monitoring, personal care, food and fluid. This meant staff were unable to identify any changes or concerns to people health or review people’s nutritional intake.

The provider did not ensure people’s communication needs were met, even though staff relied on people’s vocal sounds and body language to communicate, other methods of communication and not been explored, and there was no evidence that people were able to make choices or decisions in a way they would have understood. We were informed by the supporting manager this was something they wanted to improve on, and during our assessments the supporting manager was exploring communication tools within the service that could be used with people.

The provider did not have systems and processes in place to enable people to share feedback. The provider did not have any staff, relatives or people surveys where feedback could have been gained to help improve the service. Relatives also commented on a lack of communication between them and the service. One relative said, “[The] main issue is poor and inconsistent communication.” Staff also informed us that they had not had a staff meeting for a very long time until recently. Staff felt comfortable if they had to seek further support or raise concerns about something service. One staff member said, “We can always go to the manager or another manager and they will definitely step in to help us."

The provider ensured people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed, when they needed it. Discussions with the manager demonstrated a clear understanding of how to access specialist health and social care services, including referrals to external professionals such as speech and language therapists, when required. The provider did not assure us there was equal access to the use of the minibus at the service.

The service supported people who enjoyed participating in sensory activities, however the home did not have a sensory space for people to meet their sensory need. We explored this with the support manager who informed us they had planned to support people to purchase new individual sensory items they may enjoy in their personal space. There was no process in place to monitor the use of the minibus at the service. People paid the same amount each week to use the bus, but there were inconsistencies in the usage.

The provider did not have a system or processes in place to support people in planning for important life changes, including end-of-life care. This did not allow people to make informed decisions about their future. There was a section in the care plan to allow people to document their preferences for end-of-life care, however this had not been completed. There was also no evidence to suggest this may have been explored but declined by the person or relative.