The Raikes Residential 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 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 service 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.

There were robust processes in place to support person centred care. Care plans reflected information pertaining to each person's needs, likes and preferences. Staff had completed training regarding person centred care. People’s bedrooms were well personalised, with their photos on their doors. People told us their care was person centred. One relative told us, "In my family’s opinion the home goes over and above trying to cater for [my relative]. The staff never complain, the owner is very supportive and understanding and the family are very satisfied".

The service had a good understanding of the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Relevant documentation such as care plans and risk assessments was continually updated to reflect changes in need to each person, as it happened. Any changes in need were well communicated to the staff team. The service worked well with local services to ensure care met people's diverse health needs. People’s complex health needs were documented to ensure staff were clear on what support people needed. For example, one person had diabetes and medication was managed by external health professionals. The person’s care plan was specific and detailed, so staff were in no doubt as to what support was and was not required, and importantly, when to escalate when there were signs of deterioration. People’s health needs were also well known to kitchen staff where this may impact on their dietary needs, and relevant supporting documentation was available in kitchen areas.

Professionals we spoke with consistently told us the service worked well with them to ensure care was flexible and provided a multi-disciplinary approach. One professional told us, " I have relied on their [the service] feedback to inform decision‑making. They [the service] have provided timely and detailed updates, allowing further actions to be implemented without delay.” Professionals also told us staff have received relevant additional training to further understand people’s diversity of need. One professional told us, “The home has ensured that all appropriate staff have had access to our training, including both deputies, several members of the kitchen team, and most care staff. Engagement with training has been positive and meaningful.” We observed the service had additional information around the service to support people’s health needs, such as yoga information.

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

The service provided information to people to ensure they met accessible information standards. We observed there to be accessible menu information in the dining room, including picture prompts, so people could be supported to make choices around which meals they would like. We observed there to be information available to people and staff in communal areas relating to the identifying staff team members, safeguarding, complaints and how to contact the CQC. We advised the service there could be increased signage in the building to support with orientation, especially for people living with dementia. The service has advised us they will make improvements in this area. People told us they received relevant information from the service. One relative told us, "I received information regarding safeguarding or complaints at the outset."

The service 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.

We observed there to be a lack of processes to support people or their relatives to provide feedback. Meetings where people and their relatives could provide feedback, were sporadic, and people had not been offered satisfaction surveys. There was no supporting documentation to evidence people or relatives had been involved in care plan reviews. People we spoke with could not always recall being involved in care plan reviews, however, did say they were told of any changes to their care and felt able to raise any concerns with leaders whilst in the service. The service has told us how they will make improvements in this area.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff had completed a diverse range of training to support people who may be at risk of inequality under The Equality Act 2010, (EA,2010). For example, training relating to equality and diversity and learning disabilities. Staff therefore had a wide ranging, depth of understanding of people’s individual needs, and this was reflected in care documentation.

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.

The service had relevant policies to support equality of outcomes and experiences for those who may be at risk of inequality under the EA,2010. For example, the service’s statement of purpose advises it holds a religious service in the home once a month, however one person did advise they would like another form of religious support. People's religious or cultural needs were well documented in people's care plans. For those who may have additional communication needs, this was well documented, including any relevant support required. People told us their additional needs were well supported in the service. One relative told us, " [My relative] is hard of hearing and staff always spoke clearly to them and in close proximity to the resident. They never shout at [my relative] they just talk clearly."

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.

There was opportunity for people to have discussions relating to planning for the future, including end of life. Relevant end of life care plans was in place, including people's plans, wants and wishes. Staff had completed end of life training. People consistently told us they had been supported to have conversations regarding planning for the future and were grateful for the opportunity to have these conversations.