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

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People received care in line with their needs and personal preferences. Care plans were created using information provided by people, their relatives and professionals. These were regularly reviewed and updated by staff as they learnt more about people. We found updated care plans detailed the support people needed with their needs and daily routines. Activities were not always considered as part of providing person-centred care and not all people received appropriate stimulation and access to activities which they would enjoy.

People and their relatives confirmed they had been involved in creating and reviewing care plans. Staff we spoke with knew people well and supported people in line with their known preferences.

People were supported by a consistent staff team, which included agency staff. This helped people to form positive relationships with staff and meant staff knew people well and were able to respond better to meet people’s needs.

Where people needed more intensive support, the provider worked closely with relevant professionals to ensure appropriate funding was in place and 1-1 was implemented to help promote and maintain people’s wellbeing. Staff provided positive feedback about the calibre of agency staff provided by a new agency. Though we received mixed feedback about agency staff from people’s relatives.

People’s communication needs were not always fully considered as information was not always provided in accessible formats. For example, pictures or show plates of meals available were not shown to people to help them make a choice. People’s communication needs were recorded in their care plans and people’s personal information was stored securely.

The provider sought feedback from people, relatives, professionals and staff about the service through surveys and meetings. The provider told us more relative meetings had been organised but had not been attended which made it difficult to get feedback. Where surveys were completed, results were analysed to identify how the service could be improved and action plans created.

Complaints processes were in place and followed. People and their relatives told us they knew how to raise concerns. We found complaints were investigated and responded to.

People were mostly supported to access the care and support they needed, when they needed it. Staff sought advice when they noticed changes to people’s health and wellbeing, though some referrals to required professionals had not always been promptly made since our last assessment. For example, the provider had identified concerns regarding people’s continence not always being shared with the relevant professionals. The provider had taken appropriate action to ensure referrals were now being made appropriately.

Arrangements were made with local services to ensure people could access them appropriately. For example, an optician and a dentist visited people at the service annually to ensure they could access appropriate eye and dental care.

People who were most likely to experience inequality in experience did not always have care tailored to their needs to help address this. Although staff were trained in equality and diversity, we found some people with greater needs were at increased risk of social isolation and exclusion. Their mobility and social needs had not been fully considered which meant there was a lack of opportunities for some people to socialise and engage with staff, their peers and the local community.

Referrals had been made for people who required an advocate to help promote their views and rights.

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 showed important conversations about people’s end of life care and personal preferences were held with people or their relatives. This meant staff could provide care in line with people’s wishes.

Staff provided compassionate care to people at the end of their lives. An end-of-life champion was in place who was passionate about ensuring people had a dignified and comfortable death. Whilst on annual leave, they had chosen to visit and stay with a person who was at the end of their life due to the close relationship they had. Staff worked closely with healthcare professionals when people’s needs changed at the end of their lives to ensure people remained pain-free and comfortable.