Little Sisters of the Poor - St Peters Residence

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 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People were supported to express their wishes and preferences. Staff got to know people on a personal level to ensure care delivered was person-centred. One member of staff said, “Staff take time to get to know everyone’s likes and dislikes, and it really shows in the care they give.’’

People and their relatives told us they were consulted about their care and support needs which resulted in care plans which were reflective of people’s unique histories, preferences, and routines.

There were a range of regular activities, special events and outings offered to provide social interaction and entertainment. People were positive about the range of activities on offer. Comments included, “The range of activities and opportunities for social stimulation are excellent and varied” and “Local groups often come and visit the home. For example, music groups of pupils from both primary and secondary schools. There is also a support dog that visits. My [family member] enjoys all these visits.”

Even though the service is part of an established Catholic community, people who did not identify as Catholic or Christian were not discriminated against or under pressure to take part in the spiritual services on offer. One person told us, “People from all denominations are welcome here. Over the years there have been people from many different religious backgrounds. I’m not catholic or Christian and I feel welcome here. We don’t even think about it.”

People’s communication needs were assessed and guidelines put in place to ensure staff understood people’s communication styles 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.

People’s health and care needs were generally well understood by staff. Records and feedback showed people had access to healthcare professionals, including GPs and specialist services. Staff worked with these professionals to manage risks, nutrition and long‑term conditions.

The provider understood their responsibility to supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Care plans included information about people’s specific communication needs. The provider offered information in a range of adapted formats such large print and easy read. Hearing loops systems were in place in the chapel for people with hearing difficulties. Religious services and performances were also livestreamed to people’s bedrooms so people who were unable to leave their room could enjoy these.

Information was displayed prominently within the home to help ensure people were kept up to date. One person told us, there’s a noticeboard outside the dining-room with the activities schedule.” People and relatives generally told us staff explained things in a way they could understand and communication with staff was mostly positive.

Some people reported communication was not always easy with staff whose first language was not English. The provider had provided additional English courses to help staff improve their language skills.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care and support. People and relatives told us they felt able to speak to staff and raise concerns. Most people felt confident their concerns would be listened to and action taken to resolve them. One person said, “If I wasn’t happy about something I would definitely feel comfortable about making a complaint.” Complaints were rare but handled thoroughly and professionally.

Residents’ meetings took place every month and people described these as constructive, with changes made as a result. Minutes showed these included discussions around activities, menus and the home environment. Comments included, “I do go to the residents’ meetings. They are absolutely useful and they act upon anything that you ask or say. The minutes are taken and then we get a resume of them” and “At the meeting they bring a microphone around so that people can be heard.”

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

The provider made sure people had fair access to the service based on their needs. Leaders described a clear and structured referral and assessment process. Referrals were considered in a non‑judgemental way, and decisions were based on whether the service could safely meet people’s needs. Staff involved people and their family early in the process.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care and support in response to this.

Most people and relatives reported positive experiences and felt care was kind, respectful and safe. Staff took account of their individual needs to ensure people had equity in experiences and outcomes. People told us they were happy their individual needs were being met. One person told us, “I would say we all get heard equally.”

Despite generally good principles and a clear commitment to ensuring LGBTQ+ people and staff felt welcome in the home we found pre-admission assessments did not ensure people were given the opportunity to discuss their sexuality needs. Individual care plans did not always capture detail about peoples’ protected characteristics. We raised this with the provider, and they have told us they will make improvements in this area.

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 told us they provided highly personalised support when people were at end of life. One member of staff told us, “The Sisters and staff take turns to sit with residents, ensuring that no one is alone during their final moments, which is something very special.” This personalised approach and personal preferences was not clear in some of the care plans we reviewed. The provider has told us they will improve this to ensure people’s preferences are recorded.

End of life care was supported through coordinated planning with external professionals such as palliative care teams to ensure people received appropriate pain relief and symptom management. Staff undertook training to understand about good end of life care.