Marham House 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. 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 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.

Each person had a care plan, which explained their care needs and how these should be met. However, some people and relatives we spoke with could not recall being involved in the care planning process.

We also found care plans required updating to ensure they accurately reflected the persons current support needs. The management team told us they had also identified this, and it was part of their action plan for making the improvements needed.

People told us that staff knew them well including their likes and dislikes and respected their preferences. and what their individual needs were. One person said, “It is excellent here, staff do all they can to make sure you are happy and content.”

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. The provider worked with other professionals and services to ensure continuity of care when people transitioned into the home. A healthcare professional told us, “On the whole they are responsive to [people’s] needs and any changes to medication, some staff have been unsettled but the senior staff holds things together quite well.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Care plans reflected the levels of support, and the ways people chose to communicate and how information should be made available to them.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support, however we received mixed feedback about the response received from the management team with feedback and outcomes. One relative told us, “The general staff are very approachable especially the reception staff however the manager on [specific floor] can be very dismissive and occasionally rude. I am not sure how to get action. I can talk openly with the care staff but find the management lacking.” Another relative commented, “I feel that communication with relatives could be better. I really appreciated and valued the monthly newsletters, but these seem to have stopped. Staff changes seem to be made without us being informed, by this I mean changes to the permanent staff including senior management. I am sure that they are approachable but at the moment I’m not sure who they are.”

Some relatives told us they felt able to raise any issues with the staff and management team and were confident that these would be addressed. One relative told us, I have never needed to raise a concern or complaint but regularly speak with the care team who are very proactive.” Another relative said, “I have not had to raise a complaint as I feel welcome to knock on a door and discuss my worries if I have them.” We discussed with the provider the way they listened to people and their relatives and involved them in their care and communicated with them. The regional and district manager told us they felt there was open communication in the service and felt there had been improvements in this area, however, also said they would look to send an update letter out and also plan meetings for people and their relatives in advance with flexibility over timings to permit maximum engagement.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. There were processes in place that the provider could consider if concerns arose. They had links with external agencies that they could engage with to raise concerns if needed.

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. The registered manager was aware of inequalities people living in the home may face and was able to tell us the action they would take when facing these. There were systems in place to consider people’s experiences in care.

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. People and their relatives were supported to discuss their wishes regarding end-of-life care, and these were documented in their care records. Where people had expressed wishes about cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) or end of life care, these were respected and regularly reviewed.