Ingleside Residential Care Home

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 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.

This service scored 54 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service 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.

We observed staff did not always have the time to support people in a person-centred way.

The care plans were not person-centred and did not fully reflect people’s physical, mental, emotional and social needs. This meant the service did not give people options or choices on how their care was delivered or the most appropriate care and treatment to meet individual need.

A staff member said, “I provide person-centred care by treating each person as an individual. For example, I follow their care plans and respect their choices, cultural needs, and routines. […] I offer reassurance if they are unsettled, and encourage independence where possible. I always explain what I am doing, involve people in decisions about their care, and adjust my support based on their communication needs and abilities.” Whilst permanent staff told us they knew people well, this could not replace comprehensive care plans. New or non-permanent staff did not have the same knowledge to support people in a person-centred way.

Relatives were complimentary about the service. A relative said, “I have on a number of occasions arrived early for a visit or unannounced, sometimes I have been waiting outside the room as personal care is being carried out. The staff in the room have no knowledge that I am outside. Overhearing the conversation and respect with which my mother is treated, is really comforting and provides evidence of compassion, respect and dignity. I also have observed considerable patience, compassion, dignity and respect shown to other residents.”

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Relatives and health and social care professionals were complimentary about working with the service. A professional said, “In my experience, my guidance and advice is followed.”

The service did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People’s care records contained limited information on how to effectively communicate with them, and did not fully explore the impact of sensory losses, such as reduced vision, may have on a person.

The service failed to consider people’s needs and to provide them with information in a format tailored to their needs, for example if people required information in an easy read or large print.

Staff had GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) training that describes how organisations should handle the personal data of individuals.

The service did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

Relatives confirmed they knew how to make a complaint and felt they could approach the registered manager.

The service did not host meetings for people or relatives. People were not involved in reviewing their care and were not consulted regarding any changes made. This meant they had limited influence over decisions that directly affected their daily lives.

The service did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People were not always supported to access healthcare appointments, for example they were not asked or supported to access a dental appointment. This meant we could not be assured people’s health needs were always met or assessed by a healthcare professional. Some people did not have access to call bells, which meant they were unable to call for help if needed.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

People were not routinely asked for their feedback, and we found no evidence they were involved in their care planning. The provider did not complete any surveys for people or relatives and did not have a system in place to ensure people’s views were sought. This meant people were not involved in making decisions about their care and the place they lived in.

People were not always 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.

Some people had end of life care plans in place; however these were not always discussed with them. This meant people were not always involved in making decisions about how they want to spend their last days or what arrangements they would like to be made for them.

A staff member said, “We have supported clients on end-of-life care and we do [relevant] training.”