Divine Care Centre

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (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.

Not all care records contained the same level of information about people’s lives, preferences and what was important to them. A piece of work was underway to improve the content of care plans including the addition of more person-centred information around people’s preferences.

While the recording of care information varied in quality, this did not impact the personalised care people experienced. Staff demonstrated strong knowledge of individuals and adapted care accordingly. Observations confirmed that care was delivered in a way that reflected people’s choices and routines. People and their relatives also described care as personalised. One person said, “I really like it here. I feel like I do things that I want to do and the staff are ok with that.”

One person was at risk of harm, and staff had taken innovative and person-centred steps to both keep them safe and improve their overall quality of life.

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.

Staff knew people well and understood their preferences, which helped ensure care was delivered in a familiar and personalised way, reducing disruption for people. A health professional also told us, “Most staff are long-standing employees with a good understanding of residents' individual needs, preferences, and baseline health, which supports the delivery of person-centred care.”

The service worked with a range of external professionals to support people’s needs and ensure care remained appropriate. People and their relatives were kept informed of any changes, enabling them to remain involved in care and decision-making.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff communicated effectively with people, ensuring they understood what was happening and were able to express their views. Staff adapted their communication based on individual needs, including allowing time for people to respond and ensuring information was clearly explained.

Staff were effectively providing support to people with sensory impairments and care plans accurately reflected people’s additional communication support needs. For example, we observed staff ensuring there were subtitles on the television to ensure people watching were able to follow the film even if they found it difficult to hear.

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. A relative told us, “The new manager was quick to introduce herself to me. She is aware that I have not always been happy with my loved one's care but has reassured me that if I bring things to her attention, they will be addressed. She has made sure I know the formal route to make a complaint, but as she is so approachable, I hope I won’t need it."

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Care records showed people had support from a range of health professionals. Relatives told us they were involved in decisions about people’s care, and staff respected people’s choices and preferences.

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 provider had policies on equality, diversity and inclusion, and staff had completed relevant training. This helped ensure they understood people’s protected characteristics and the importance of delivering fair and equal care.

Care records demonstrated decisions were made in conjunction with the relevant people to ensure staff always acted in people’s best interest. This included family members, advocates or other health professionals.

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.

Staff had received training on end-of-life care and records included information about people’s advance decisions, for example, emergency healthcare plans (EHCP) and ‘do not attempt cardiovascular pulmonary resuscitation’ (DNACPR). However, an external professional told us, “While staff are generally aware that these [EHCP] plans are in place, a more detailed understanding of their clinical content would further support clinical decision-making and ensure residents' wishes and treatment plans are consistently followed.”

End of life care plans were not always in place in advance of being needed and were not sufficiently detailed when put in place. We spoke with the registered manager who recognised this and explained that although people and relatives were provided an opportunity to plan end of life care in advance, it was often difficult to engage people in discussions on this topic. They were looking at ways to review how and when these discussions took place to try to better capture people’s needs in a person-centred and sensitive way.