Silverpoint Court 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 68 (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, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

It was not always clear when reviews were taking place with people and their relatives when appropriate. Feedback from relatives was consistent around not being involved in regular reviews. Comments we received included, “When [relative] first went in, they did a care plan, but I don’t think I have seen it since then.” The provider was in the process of reviewing and updating all care plans and risk assessments. Care plans we reviewed that had recently been updated were person centred and contained the dates of reviews and when they were next due to be reviewed.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Feedback from professionals was mostly positive about people having access to external healthcare such as district nurses and GPs. Staff told us they would support with any health appointments if required or with supporting people within the home when external healthcare professionals visited. Staff communicated well with external health and social care professionals to support people’s needs.

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

People’s communication preferences were documented within their care plans, including if they required any additional support with communication such as specific communication aids. The provider understood the accessible information standard (AIS). The AIS is a legal requirement for organisations providing NHS and adult social care support to ensure people are provided with information in formats that support their specific needs, for example in easy read formats or larger print.

People’s information was kept secure and confidential.

The provider 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.

The provider had processes in place for people to be able to raise any concerns or complaints. However, people and their relatives told us they did not always feel able to raise concerns or did not feel that information was always shared with them. Comments included, “I have raised several complaints, but you don’t hear, it is not worth it” and “There is very little communications.” Despite this, we did receive some positive feedback around raising concerns. One relative told us, “I have never had to complain there yet, and yes if I did, I would know who to complain to.”

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

Since our last inspection, improvements had been made to care plans and risk assessments. This was an ongoing process as the provider was currently reviewing and updating all care plans and risk assessments. Care plans were accessible to staff. Staff supported people to access external healthcare when required.

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.

There was no evidence that anyone was treated less favourably, or that outcomes differed as a result of personal characteristics, background or support needs. People had access to external health providers and healthcare professionals.

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.

At the time of this inspection visit no one was receiving end of life care.Care plans reviewed showed a good level of detail around people’s wishes and preferences around their end-of-life support. Where people had chosen not to discuss their full preferences around their end-of-life care, this was clear within their care plans. They did, however, contain detail around if the person had a DNACPR (Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation) document in place or other documents relating to end-of-life care such as PEACE plans (Priorities for Care and End of Life) and RESPECT document (Respecting a Person’s Choice, Empathy and Support for the Terminally Ill).