The Old Vicarage

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 questiongood. At thisassessmentthe rating hasremainedthe same.This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People received care which was person-centred from staff who knew them well. The service had a stable staff team, which meant care was delivered consistently and in line with their preferences.

However, care records were not always individualised. For example, we found occasions where people's names were incorrect within records. The management team at the service were aware that care records needed further work and had plans in place to review and build on these.

Our observations of staff practice were positive, and staff and leaders knew people as individuals well. All staff we spoke with, including staff who had not worked at the service very long, were able to talk to us confidently about the people they were caring for. There was a whole home approach to care, with staff members from the catering, domestic and maintenance teams interacting with people and their relatives. For example, we observed a member of the catering team speaking with a person who required assistance. They offered natural and kind reassurance to the person and were clearly familiar with their individual needs and preferences.

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 received training in mental health, dementia and learning disabilities which equipped them with sufficient knowledge to provide care to people with a variety of needs. This knowledge also meant staff were able to identify and report changes in people’s presentation to external health professionals as necessary. People had timely access to relevant healthcare professionals.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

We received positive feedback from relatives, who told us they were involved in reviewing the information held within their loved ones care records. One relative told us “I went through everything with the staff at the assessment”. Another said “Right at the start I was asked how much I wanted to be involved with the care plans and we have reviewed them since”.

However, information held within people’s care records was not always accurate and up to date. The management team were in the process of reviewing this information at the point of our inspection.

The manager demonstrated a good level of knowledge around the Accessible Information Standards (AIS), and told us how they share information with people in formats which met their individual communication needs.

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.

Feedback was collected from people and their families through both formal surveys and informal conversations. For example, the catering team visited people regularly to seek feedback on the food, which in turn was used to influence the next seasonal menu.

The service had a ‘You said, we did’ display in the main reception, which gave examples of feedback the service had received from people, and the actions taken in response. There were examples including people wanting more external trips and being able to access the gardens more freely. We saw that work was underway in both these areas at the point of our inspection.

Most relatives we spoke with said their views were actively sought, and that resident and relatives’ meetings were held with the management team.

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

People were supported to experience equality in the care they received, Staff understood people's needs and had received appropriate training in equality and diversity. The service ensured barriers were removed and people could access external services when needed, such as occupational therapists, district nurses and dentists.

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.

The manager told us how they sought the input of independent advocates to support people where needed. The manager was able to speak confidently about the actions they would take to monitor that people experienced equity in the care and outcomes they received.

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.

Information relating to peoples end of life care wishes were mostly included within care records. Where appropriate, people's future wishes had been discussed with their legal representatives and healthcare professionals. Staff had receiving training in supporting people with their end-of-life care wishes and demonstrated confidence in the principles of delivering this type of care to people. We saw evidence of how the service had worked in conjunction with peoples GP’s and district nurses when people were reaching the end of their life.