Archived: 142 Petts Hill 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 provider met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to inadequate. This meant services were not planned or delivered in a way that met people’s needs.

This service scored 43 (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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

There was a lack of accurate recording or robust processes in place for the management team to review incidents. We found this lack of review of incidents had led to required actions not being taken to improve care outcomes for people. People’s care plans were not accurate, up to date or fully reflective of their needs.

Language was not always person-centred, for example staff and records described people as being aggressive and violent, rather than considering the need or feeling the person was expressing their distress.

The lack of effective review and audit tools in place did not ensure improvements could be made or learning could be shared widely across the staff team.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

Where people were receiving care from an external health team, we saw care plans and medicines records did not indicate this. For example, those people who were receiving healthcare input from mental health teams. The professional visit records within people’s care records lacked information and left people exposed to the risk of staff not having clear guidance on their care needs and how they were to be met. There were significant shortfalls in provisions for people in relation to care, activities and the environment. We observed staff practices did not meet the diverse needs of people.

The provider did not supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. As most of the information we asked for and saw on the day of our inspection we were not assured if the information was shared it would be accurate and effective. The failure of the provider not providing us with the requested documents and evidence, did not provide us with the assurance that people who used the service did receive responsive care and support.

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

There were limited opportunities for people to be able to share their views and provide feedback on care. The provider did not have an effective and accessible system in place to record, manage, investigate and monitor complaints and concerns. We did see some feedback surveys had been completed by some people, but this feedback had not been collated or analysed and was out of date. There was therefore no evidence of action taken in response to the feedback. We did not see any documentation to show relatives had been involved in meetings or in any feedback process.

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

Residents’ meetings were not held so people were not actively involved in shaping the service. A lack of trips and tailored activities in place left people without meaningful stimulation and not always supported to experience equity in the care they received.

Staff had not completed training in equality, diversity and human rights, and there was no policy in place.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. There was a failure to maintain effective oversight and monitoring of the experiences of people with mental health issues. Inequality in the experiences of these people was evident throughout the assessment The provider and registered manager failed to identify and address these shortfalls to improve the lives of people.

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.

During the inspection we did not observe anyone actively receiving end of life care. Care records showed that some people had end of life care plans in place. Where these were in place they required improvements to ensure they were person-centred.