Grenham Bay Court

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 changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care.

This service scored 61 (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’s care plans did not always contain details about how people’s health conditions affected them and the support they needed. Some people’s care plans contained information about their cultural or spiritual background. However, there was limited guidance about how staff should support people to maintain these needs.

Some people had developed relationships with other people in the service, which they may not have capacity to understand the consequences. Staff had assessed this as behaviour to be managed and the guidance for staff was centred around stopping people spend time together away from communal areas. There had been no assessment about how to support people to have a relationship which met their needs.Relatives told us they had been involved developing strategies to manage people’s care with staff. A relative told us, “I was involved in the planning and re-enforce what the staff say when I visit.”

We could not be assured people were being supported to get up when they preferred. During night staff meetings and night spot checks, the registered manager discussed how many people the night staff had got up. The discussions centred around the workload of the day staff and how the amount of people up for the day staff should be balanced and evened out over the units. This did not promote person centred care.

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. There was a stable group of staff who knew people well. People and relatives told us they were supported by regular staff and were supported in the way they preferred.

Staff worked with the GP and district nurses to support people including referring people when their needs changed. Staff supported the district nurse when they came to complete wound dressings or to give insulin.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People did not always have access to information in different formats. There was a board with the activities which were going to take place in the service, however, there was no pictures to help people understand what was going to happen. People were asked what they wanted to eat but were not offered photos of the meals to help them choose. A relative told us, they found this frustrating as their family member could not always eat or understand what was on offer without the help of a photo.

People did not always have access to essential information such as the complaint’s procedure or service user guide in a way they could understand such as easy read.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. There were not always processes in place to support people living with dementia to express their views. Relatives and people were given the opportunity to attend meetings and discuss any concerns they may have. However, not all people could attend and take part in these meetings. There were no reasonable adjustments made to support people to take part or express their views.

Relatives told us they were confident to raise concerns and that action would be taken. When complaints had been made, the registered manager had followed the provider’s policy. Complaints had been investigated with letters sent at each stage of the process, some complaints had been upheld and action taken.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Relatives told us staff had referred people to healthcare professionals when their needs changed including following a fall. A relative told us, “We’ve had a care plan review with mental health.” People had access to an optician, dentist and chiropodist.

The building had been adapted including bathrooms to provide people with access to all facilities and outside space.

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 provider had policies in place to promote equality for people and to recognise people’s protected characteristics.

Staff understood their role in protecting people’s rights and speaking up for them when they were unable to.

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. Relatives confirmed they had been involved in discussing people’s end of life care plan. A relative told us, “We talked through an end of life plan with Grenham Bay.”

People’s preferences had been discussed with the GP to devise anticipatory care plans; these documented people’s wishes about where they wanted to be cared for and the treatment they wanted to receive.