Bishop's Cleeve 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 changed to requires improvement.

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.

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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The provider failed to act in people’s best interest or in a person-led way. People were not treated as individuals, nor were relatives routinely meaningfully engaged in reviews. People were not equitably able to access the outdoors, food outside of mealtimes, or supported to engage in activities. These concerns were recurring issues over several assessments. Care plans did not reflect people’s preferences, needs or risk management. There was a lack of detail on people’s past histories which meant staff would not recognise behaviours relevant to their previous lives or occupations. People’s physical needs were inconsistently met and staff told us they were short staffed and could not meet wellbeing needs, such as spending time talking to them or having 1:1 time.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

People and relatives gave inconsistent feedback on their experience of continuity of care, support and treatment. One relative told us, “We’re now looking at physio for mum. The care home hasn’t really got involved with this, so we are looking at an NHS waiting list or finding someone ourselves. I’ve not seen a care plan.” Another relative told us, “He’s only been here 3 weeks. No sight of a care plan or a review of dad’s care.” People told us, “I’ve got this cough, had it since my Covid jab. I’ve not seen the doctor. I have to ask the people who do the medicine, but they might forget as they do sometimes.” And “The food is boring; I could recite the menu by heart. It’s Wednesday so it will be a roast something and a vegetarian option. Why don’t they do a spaghetti bolognaise or something different?” However other comments from relatives were, “Everyday carers are great and I know the senior carers by name. They can all pass messages on. They all dealt with mum’s [medical condition] very well.” And other comments from people included, “The food is good, though you sometimes need more. People are nice, polite, always talk to you. The call bell is answered promptly.” And “I’ve a lovely room and it is a good place here. The food is lovely; you can’t fault the food.”

People were not receiving the care and support they needed. People who were at risk of falls, did not have appropriate investigations or root cause analysis completed. People who were on fluid monitoring did not have their targets met. People who were at risk of skin breakdown did not have adequate risk assessments or wound care plans in place.

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

The service produced monthly newsletters in large print for people who required this. The service had an activities board where people could see what was happening. There was a staff board on the ground floor with pictures of the staff members on shift. However, we did notice there was no staff board upstairs, and relatives told us they didn’t have access to care plans.

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 were listened too and the resident meeting minutes showed actions taken for different feedback received. For example, in the recent resident meeting people said they wanted more outings, and in response we saw more outings were being scheduled.

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

People were not always given equitable access to the service, to activities, to external professionals in a timely manner.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

People did not always experience the same standard of care. Staff on the first floor did not demonstrate adequate knowledge of dementia care and best practices. This meant people were at risk of poor outcomes. People living on the ground floor had access to higher staffing levels as staff moved between the 2 ground floor units and could be more responsive to emergencies, more support from staff, greater access to the outside areas and had access to snacks without having to ask for them. People living on the ground floor also had memory boxes whereas on the first floor, these were missing.

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.

Care plans had information about people’s choices around resuscitation. Care plans contained information about people’s preferences and future wishes and guided staff on what was important to them.