Driftwood House

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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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, and their relatives, were involved in making decisions about care and support. Care plans documented people’s views about their care and their individual choices and preferences. Some relatives mentioned they had not had sight of their family member’s care plan recently. We raised this as a concern and the provider was able to demonstrate they had begun a process of review. Staff knew people well, including those more recently admitted to the service. They were able to tell us individual details about people’s health and care 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. People were supported to access healthcare appointments, for both routine and specialist services. The provider had good working relationships with the local health and social care community and communication was effective.

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

At lunchtime, although there were photographs of the meals on offer on a large display board, staff did not draw people’s attention to this or present them with a plated meal to help them make or confirm their choice. We saw limited evidence of information in alternative formats for people living with dementia or with sight or hearing loss, but the provider confirmed these would be made available should they be required. Signage around the service was good and helped people navigate their way around.

Relatives gave us mixed feedback about how the service communicates with them. Some felt the provider was not always proactive in sharing important information while others had no issues. One person told us they had not been made aware of the significant building and renovation programme which was underway. We saw there was an occasional newsletter sent out to relatives and the most recent edition came out following our onsite visit.

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.

We found people were involved, as much as they were able, in decisions about their care and about the service overall. Recent renovations to the décor at the service had been discussed with people who used the service. We viewed photographs of people choosing finishes such as paint colours and tile designs. Relatives were given the opportunity to provide feedback about the service via an online survey and we found action had followed. Issues such as a need for better communication, more care reviews and better activities had been reviewed and action had begun to address these. Activities had been given a higher profile, care reviews for all had started and a new edition of the service newsletter had been sent out. Complaints were managed in line with the service’s complaints policy.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The service made referrals to other health professionals to ensure adaptations and equipment were sourced to help meet people’s needs. The environment had been adapted to support equitable access, including the availability of a lift, handrails and sloped access to the garden area, although this required some further adaptation to ensure it was totally safe. The provider told us there were plans in place to improve and increase the garden space for next summer.

The provider advocated for people to ensure they had access to health and care services. There were plans in place for people to take more advantage of leisure opportunities within the local town in future.

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. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of equality, diversity and inclusion principles and were able to tell us about the barriers some people might face in accessing services. Language in records was inclusive and sensitive to people’s individual needs.

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’s care plans did not have any record relating to people’s plans for the future. People’s end of life care and last wishes were not clearly recorded in all care plans. However, decisions relating to whether people wished to be given cardiopulmonary resuscitation had been recorded and were known by staff.