The Pantiles Care Home Limited

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 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The home 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.

Relatives told us the care people received was person-centred and they were involved when the home was responding to the changing needs of people. One told us, “I talk to [registered manager]a lot as my loved one’s needs are changing often and I’m always there discussing things. They are always thinking ahead and anticipating what next steps should betaken.”

Staff knew people and their needs well. We observed staff supporting people in a person-centred way throughout the inspection. However, we found some care plans were not always comprehensive or complete, we discussed this with the registered manager, and they told us they would be delegating this work amongst the senior team.

The home 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 worked with each other and health and social care professionals to support continuity in care. A health care professional told us, “When the home seeks input, it is usually done in a timely manner. For example, I have been contacted promptly regarding changes in a person’s condition or when advice was required to review care plans. This proactive communication supports effective decision-making and continuity of care.”

Care plans and risk assessments had been written in conjunction with health and social care professionals’ advice and guidance and this had supported people’s needs to be met.

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

Staff approaches had adapted to meet people’s individual communication needs, for example, supplying a printed, pictorial copy of menus. Care and support plans included information on individual communication support needs, and we observed staff implementing that in practice. Speech and language therapists had been involved in the development of support for people.

There were residents’ meetings every 3 months where information was shared. There was an open offer to all relatives to attend the meetings if they wanted to.

The home made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Relatives told us they felt involved in and informed about the care of their loved ones. They were able to tell us about how to make a complaint and understood who to escalate concerns to if required. Relatives told us that the registered managers open door policy meant that most issues were resolved without the need for a formal complaint to be made.

Residents’ meetings were held every 3 months where people were able to provide feedback on their care and support. There was evidence when people raised concerns or made a complaint this was responded to. For example, a person had complained that the ceiling track hoist system in his room was causing them anxiety. The home involved a physiotherapist, who said it was no longer needed. This meant the person could adjust the layout of the bedroom to how they wanted it.

The home made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The home had supported people to access the care and support they needed. Reasonable adjustments had been made by external partners in order for people to access their service. For example, the GP visited the home once a week to attend to any health needs of the residents.

When relatives had raised concerns about the optician service, information on an alternative was provided and residents and their families chose a new optician that met their needs.

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.

Relatives told us that their loved ones were treated fairly, and their rights were respected. We observed people being treated with equity. One told us, “I do not have any concerns at all. I’ve never seen any discrimination. They treat everyone with such respect. It’s like a family.”

The home was using a local wheelchair accessible mini cab service to ensure that all people were able to have to same opportunities and outcomes.

Staff had completed Equality, Diversity, Inclusion and Human rights training meaning people’s personalised needs were met.

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.

There were end of life plans in place for people. People were given the opportunity to discuss their care and future wishes, together with family involvement if appropriate. The home used various tools and systems to support end of life care. This meant they had access to extra support and guidance when providing care at the end of life.

The registered manager told us they were proactive in preparing for the future care needs of people. For example, pain medication was already in place for when it was needed and the home already had links with a local hospice.