Overslade House

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.

People spoke positively about their experiences of care and how staff supported them, but some people on the dementia unit had limited access to social stimulation to help support their wishes and needs. We saw people on the unit asleep and not engaged in any type of social activity or stimulation to enhance their wellbeing. Whilst music was played in the afternoon, we did not see staff encouraging people with sensory aids, rummage boxes, items of interest etc. We were told that activities usually took place on 1 unit and people were supported to that unit to participate in an activity. The manager told us that plans were in place for a sensory room on the dementia unit to improve people’s access to sensory activities. In other areas of home people told us about activities they had enjoyed. One person said, “If there’s anything going on I’ll join in. I enjoy going out in the minibus. I enjoy the fitness, bowls and the games. They knock on my door and ask me if I’d like to join in. If I want to join in, I’ll go down. I also enjoy quizzes.”

Staff knew people well and worked closely with health and social care professionals to ensure any changes in a person’s needs were responded to appropriately. Each person had a detailed care plan which helped staff to understand people’s needs. However, it was not always possible to confirm people had received care and support in accordance with their wishes. For example, 2 people’s care records showed they had not been provided with any food or drink until late morning. We established that this may be due to delayed recording.

Staff told us they asked people and their families about what was important to them so they could use this information when providing care. One staff member told us, “People’s families are given ‘Getting to know me’ booklets to complete. These tell us all about people’s preferences and hobbies.” Staff explained how they aimed to ensure activities were tailored to meet people’s individual and changing needs. For example, 1 person who had previously enjoyed skating was accompanied by a member of the activities staff to go to a local ice rink. Although the person was not able to weight bear, they had enjoyed watching the skaters. Another example related to care staff supporting people a person to visit a family member’s farm, so they could reconnect with their past and spend time with their grandchildren.

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.

People’s care plans detailed which other professionals were involved in their care. People told us they were able access health professionals when needed such as the doctor or optician. One person said, “I have seen the doctor. I had dry skin on my legs. He put me on antibiotics, and it really helped the skin on my legs.” Staff told us a GP visited the service on a weekly basis, and on an ad hoc basis, to meet people’s needs and prevent unplanned hospital visits.

Staff understood the importance of working closely with health and social care professionals to ensure people’s needs were responded to appropriately. One person told us, “The man from the church visits me. He’s wonderful. He’s a big friend to me now. It’s such a positive for me when he visits. He stays for about half an hour. He comes once a week on a Wednesday.”

The manager told us, “We have holy communion for residents, and the priest knows people in the home. For other cultures we have smart TV’s and access to the right channels with prayers for them.”

The provider was able to provide information in formats that were tailored to individual needs although some people were not always aware of this.

Some people felt they were not always given access to information with some saying they were not aware of a care plan, ‘resident’ meetings’, or a complaints procedure. Comments included, “We don’t have any meetings” and “I don’t go to any meetings. I don’t know if there are any.” However, people agreed that staff knew about their needs and confirmed they were able to discuss any concerns or changes relating to their care and support with staff if needed.

Staff told us 1 person on the dementia care unit had been supported to access audio books and talking newspapers which were tailored to their needs. We saw picture signage around the home to support people to locate areas such as toilets and bathrooms. Information about activities was provided to people in a written format or was shared verbally by staff. One person told us, “I always know what’s going on because they give us a leaflet that tells us what’s going on.”

We asked the manager about people’s access to information about them. They told us, “If the person has capacity they can have access to it. If they have any queries and they want to see the care plan the nurse will sit with them. For those without capacity we will discuss with family to get more information.” They told us they used cards and photos to communicate with 1 person whose first language was not English. The manager also told us they had staff that spoke Punjabi and Chinese which helped staff and people to more effectively communicate with one another.

The provider had processes in place for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in some decisions about their care.

The provider had a complaints policy and procedure that was available to people should they wish to raise any concerns. They also had a “Customer feedback policy” that provided guidance to staff about how to acknowledge any negative feedback and take learning from this to ensure people’s experience of the service improved. The policy identified that people could provide feedback about the service and any potential improvements through the “Resident of the day” initiative.

People said they felt at ease to raise any concerns with staff or their family members if they needed to. One person said, “If I had any complaints I would speak to one of the carers, there is 1 night staff member I get on particularly well with.” A relative told us, “My complaint was addressed immediately….. I was impressed how well they dealt with it.”

Where information of concern had been shared by people with management staff these had been documented and responded to with changes in practice identified where appropriate to show lessons had been learned.

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

People’s communication needs were recorded in their care plans including if the person used glasses or aids to read information given to them. People felt they were treated fairly and where some people were not able to access activities, the manager told us the activity staff could provide some one-to-one support with staff. People’s interests were established when they came to live at the home to help ensure they could engage in activities they enjoyed. People’s cultural and religious needs were assessed when they moved into the home with details of how they wished to be supported with these. One person told us, “I don’t go to church, but the minister pops in to chat to me. I enjoy talking to him for half an hour sometimes.”

Staff worked with other health professionals to ensure people with protected characteristics such as disability and age were able to be effectively cared for at the home.

The provider ensured daily handover meetings with staff included updates on people’s health and wellbeing so that any actions needed for people to access care, support or treatment were identified.

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.

Staff were aware of risks associated with people experiencing inequality and worked to ensure people experienced outcomes tailored to their care, support and treatment in response to this. A staff member gave an example where 2 people had previously been vegetarian, linked to their cultural and religious practices, but as their dementia advanced, they wanted to start to eat meat. They explained how they had consulted with people’s family members about changing their diet.

Staff had access to policies and procedures in relation to the equality and people’s human rights to help them understand what to consider when supporting people. Staff knew how to ensure people experienced positive care and experiences that met their needs. One staff member advised how they had previously supported 3 people with Indian backgrounds to access ‘Bollywood’ movies in their first language and to help maintain their faith through televised prayers/religious programmes. Another person had strong ties to Ireland so to maintain their culture, had been supported to access Irish films and music.

People were supported to see a priest on a weekly basis and to take holy communion, where this was important expression of their faith.

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.

People’s end of life preferences were assessed when they moved to the home. We saw some care plans contained more detail than others in regards to people’s wishes for their end of life care. For example, 1 care plan did not detail the persons spiritual needs whereas others did. However, some people told us their families would support them in decisions about their care, if their health deteriorated. ReSPECT forms detailed peoples wishes should their health deteriorate to a critical stage.

Staff explained how they worked with other units, so as people’s needs increased, there was a smooth transfer to nursing units for end of life nursing care.