South Chowdene

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 service met people’s needs. At the last inspection we rated this key question good. At the last inspection we rated this key question outstanding. At this inspection the rating has changed to 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 provider did not consistently ensure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. People told us staff were kind and respectful, and professionals described staff as knowledgeable about residents. However, relatives raised concerns about residents being left unsupervised in communal areas, which compromises dignity and safety. Staff feedback highlighted insufficient staffing during peak periods and limited opportunities to provide fully personalised care. While care records were written in a person-centred manner, they often lacked sufficient detail about how to deliver care and support. For example, fluid balance information and baseline functioning were not accurately recorded. Although staff understood people’s needs, we found gaps in documentation about the impact of people’s conditions, which could affect decision-making and continuity of care. A staff member said, “We are doing the best for our residents because they deserve the best. The things improved a lot in the last 6 months, and I can see improvements every week.” The registered manager acted promptly to address documentation gaps and improve care planning, and they were resolving issues related to availability of staff.

Staff 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 told us they were asked about their preferences and felt their views were respected. Professionals reported improvements in communication following changes to GP ward rounds and the appointment of permanent staff, which supported safer care. A visiting professional said, “More permanent staff are now on duty and this allows for better communication; for the staff to attend the GP ward round and ultimately this has resulted in safer and overall more effective care.”Relatives and staff confirmed that continuity of care had improved since the new manager came into post, reducing reliance on agency staff.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Information was available in a variety of formats and ways they could understand. Care staff told us they had information about and understood people’s communication needs. A person said, “The staff always take time to make sure I understand what people are saying and they understand me.”

The management team enabled people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas. People and relatives said staff listened to them and acted on concerns. Relatives described staff as approachable and responsive, and professionals praised staff knowledge of residents. A relative said, “The new manager is very approachable and efficient. In conclusion I can say I am very satisfied with the care my relative receives.” Staff reported regular meetings and handovers, although some felt their views were not always taken on board.

Staff made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Discussions with staff showed they understood how to access specialist health or social care support people might need. People were able to access care and support when needed, and staff worked to accommodate individual preferences, such as meal choices and cultural needs.

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. For example, staff completed training in equality and diversity to understand and reduce inequalities or prejudices that affected outcomes for people. The registered manager ensured peoples’ social and healthcare needs were fully considered and met.

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. Staff understood how to deliver care at the end of their life and had completed a variety of training to ensure they had the skills needed to meet both the care of people nearing the end of their life and those with complex healthcare needs. The nursing staff were skilled at looking after people as they drew near to the end of their life and ensured this care was delivered effectively.