CareTech Community Services Limited - 196 High Street Also known as Hunters Lodge

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 inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to person centred care. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

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.

Our previous inspection found the provider did not always meet people’s needs and preferences, there had been improvements however people’s care was not always personalised as there was a lack of activities both inhouse and within the community for people. Relatives also confirmed this, but all felt the registered manager was trying to address this. Staff showed at times a lack of understanding about the importance of activities, and some felt activities only happened in the summer. Staff told us that going for a walk and for a coffee was an activity except within some people’s care plans there was specific activities that people enjoyed but they were not regularly participating in. Care plans were being reviewed, and we saw one person wanted their care plan in a specific format and staff accommodated this.

The registered manager understood the diverse health and care needs of people. There was some feedback from one health care professional about the lack of consistent staff, but we saw evidence of the provider been proactive in trying to recruit to permanent posts. The registered manager also used agency staff who knew people well.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. We saw staff shared information using people’s preferred methods of communication. In people’s room we saw information in an accessible format about how to make a complaint or give feedback.

The registered manager had a range of processes for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.The registered manager held meetings with relatives and there were regular house meetings. House meetings were used as an opportunity to discuss home life and what people liked to do, we saw some people suggested they would like a weekly takeaway, and this was reflected in the menu plan the following week.

People’s cultural and religious needs were met, staff were aware of people’s specific needs and how they could support them. Staff had good working relationships with local health professionals and knew how to contact the appropriate teams to support people when the need arose.

The service promoted equality and staff and people had responsibility for specific roles within the home. One person was the fire lead, and they helped staff to carry out the weekly fire alarm test. Another person had worked for the provider as a speaker for new staff’s induction, this was an opportunity to ensure new staff understood the values of the provider and how people would like to receive their care and support.

There was a lack of information recorded about people’s end of life wishes, one person had a prepaid funeral plan but there was no specific information about what their wishes were. In another person’s end of life section of the care plan was information about their dietary requirements. We raised this with the registered manager, and they told us they would continue to work with relatives to ensure information was recorded and reflected people’s wishes.