Chacombe Park

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

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 the service was responsive to people’s individual needs. Care was person-centred, with detailed care plans that reflected people’s preferences, routines and cultural needs. Activities were varied and meaningful, and people were encouraged to make daily choices and maintain independence where possible. Families said they were consulted about care and kept updated about changes. End-of-life care was delivered with dignity, though some staff said they would benefit from further training in recognising when additional symptom control was needed.

This service scored 75 (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 always made sure people’s care, treatment and support was delivered in a person-centred way. Staff understood what person-centred care meant and we observed this in practice. Care was planned around people’s individual needs, wishes and preferences, and records included details about their routines, backgrounds and what was important to them. Relatives told us, staff adapted care to suit personal preferences, such as supporting people who preferred to rise early or spend more time outdoors.

Staff were observed engaging with people in a friendly and respectful way, taking time to listen and respond. Activities were varied and tailored to individual interests, with one resident saying, “It is marvellous here, we had the big Fete, we go to Brackley to sing in the Dementia choir.” Relatives confirmed they were involved in reviews and that staff acted quickly to update care when needs changed.

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. Staff worked effectively as a team to provide consistent support and understood the importance of continuity of care. They had ready access to people’s care plans, which enabled them to deliver appropriate and timely support.

Daily handovers were used to share new information and instructions, ensuring staff were kept up to date and people’s needs were met without delay. The provider also worked effectively with external professionals. Records showed close involvement from GPs, dieticians, therapists and community nurses, and weekly GP rounds supported continuity of healthcare. Hospital transfer packs, including MAR charts and Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation documentation, were prepared to make sure information was shared promptly when people moved between services. One GP told us the home was “very good” and described the team as “a pleasure to work with.”

The provider always supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were accessible and tailored to people’s needs. People’s care plans clearly set out their support requirements, and information about modified diets and fluids was displayed in bedrooms and available on staff handsets. This ensured staff always had clear guidance to follow.

We observed staff recognising and responding to people’s body language and facial expressions when these were used to communicate needs. Staff also supported people to make choices about their meals, either by explaining menu options or by showing plated meals to help people decide. Relatives told us communication with the service was good, and staff explained changes in care promptly and in a way that was understood. Activity information was displayed in communal areas, and people were encouraged to join in with events and outings that suited their interests. We noted that activity records were not always completed consistently, but the provider acted during the inspection to remind staff and strengthen practice.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. People were also involved in decisions about their day-to-day support, and relatives said they felt included in care planning and reviews. One relative told us, “The Home always phone us up if there is ever a problem, we went through everything with the Head Nurse only last week.”

The provider had a complaints system in place, and records showed concerns were logged and responded to in line with policy. Staff encouraged feedback informally through daily conversations, and people were given opportunities to share their views at meetings. We observed staff listening to people’s requests and adapting care in the moment, which showed that feedback was valued and acted upon straight away.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. There were no barriers to admission, and people had equal access to health professionals, activities and opportunities within the home. People’s needs were assessed before they moved into the service to ensure that any adaptations or equipment required for their care were in place from the start.

Records showed that staff worked with GPs, dieticians, tissue viability nurses and other professionals to make sure care was delivered when required. People told us their care and support needs were met by staff, and relatives said they felt reassured their family members were treated fairly and with respect. Activities were available to everyone, and we observed staff encouraging people to take part in events and outings in line with their interests and abilities. Visiting professionals also told us staff were organised and provided the right information during appointments.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. People were supported in a fair and consistent way, regardless of their needs or backgrounds.

We observed staff adapting care to meet people’s individual circumstances, including supporting those with limited communication by recognising body language and non-verbal cues. Care plans contained information about what was important to people, including their family connections, social, cultural and spiritual needs, and staff used this to guide how care was provided. Relatives told us their family members were treated fairly and with respect, and that they felt confident no one was disadvantaged. Relatives also gave high praise for the staff, describing them as caring and attentive.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they had enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. Care plans contained information about people’s wishes and preferences for end-of-life care. Staff were trained to provide end-of-life care and knew where people’s plans and documents relating to their decisions were kept.

We observed staff providing care that promoted comfort and dignity, and relatives said they felt supported and involved in decisions. The provider had systems in place to ensure people approaching the end of their life were identified and reviewed, although some staff said they would benefit from further training in recognising when people may need additional symptom control. The provider was aware of this and had plans to strengthen training in this area.