The Paddocks 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 50 (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.

People, and their relatives where appropriate, were not always fully involved in making decisions about their care and support. Care plans documented people’s views about their care but some were not fully completed. Permanent staff knew people very well, but agency and newer staff did not. They relied on the provider’s information sharing processes which did not always make it easy for them to quickly understand people’s needs.

There was limited activity provision and people were not always supported to follow hobbies and pastimes they had previously enjoyed. One person commented, ‘The activities could be improved. There isn’t anyone in charge of them. There aren’t really any activities at the moment. I would like to be able to go outside more and on outings, but it doesn’t happen.’ This was a typical comment for those who were not able to access community activities independently.

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 were supported to access healthcare appointments, for both routine and specialist services. However, we received negative feedback from local healthcare professionals about the way the service worked with them, stating this was not always a joined-up process. The provider told us they had been working to improve communication, but this had been hampered by recent management changes at the service and poor communication from local healthcare professionals. Occasional meetings took place but these were not regular. This remains an area for improvement.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People told us they did not always feel fully informed about all aspects of their care or about the changes of management team within the service. At lunchtime we did not see photographic menus and people were not shown fully plated meals to help them make choices. However, there was good signage around the service to help guide those people living with dementia.

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 told us they had processes in place to enable people to share feedback and raise concerns. They carried out surveys and had very recently introduced Resident of the Day, during which all aspects of a person’s care was reviewed and discussed. However, people who used the service gave us different feedback and felt their voice was not always heard. A typical comment was’ ‘You don’t really get asked what you think about things here’. We noted the surveys which had been completed in July and August contained some negative feedback, especially about staffing, which had not been analysed or action documented.

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

People had call bells in their rooms to alert staff if they needed help. Staff told us those people living with dementia were unable to use a call bell and these were not provided. However, we found checks on these people were not always in line with people’s assessed needs. Staff did not always respond quickly to people calling out.

The premises were accessible with handrails and lift access to the upper floor was usually in place. As an interim measure during the period the lift was broken a new stairlift was fitted. However, not all people who used the service were able to use this which reduced their access to the garden and wider community for a period of time. We have been assured the lift is now working again.

The garden was accessible and there was good signage to guide people around the service.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen 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.

Staff had completed training in equality, diversity and inclusion and demonstrated an understanding of the barriers people can face when trying to access services. However, the service did not always ensure people had access to the care, treatment and social opportunities they needed.

People were not fully 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. Records relating to this were in place, but information was quite brief in some cases. The manager assured us this would be addressed where needed.