Rest Haven Residential 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 service. This key question has been rated 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 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.

We spoke with the nominated individual who told us the people at the service were at the heart of everything the service did. Care plans were detailed and personalised, reflecting individual needs and preferences. Staff had a strong understanding of person-centred care, and this was observed throughout our visit.

People were supported to make choices in all aspects of their daily lives, and staff consistently respected people’s rights to make decisions, including the freedom for people to change their minds. We observed choices being offered to people throughout our visit and people told us their choices were respected by staff. Bedrooms were mostly personalised, and the provider was making improvements where needed.

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 service worked with commissioners and other professionals to ensure people received continuity of care whilst living at the service.Systems in place supported continuity of care. Staff showed skill in supporting and understanding people’s health needs. The service made referrals to specialist services when required. People had timely access to relevant health professionals where required.

Communication systems were effective, with clear handovers of information between staff to ensure continuity of care. Key messages were communicated via the electronic care planning system, handovers and head of department meetings. One staff member said, “In the morning you come in and you fire your pod (care plan recording device) up and it tells you an update and about what has happened in the last 12 hours, and it highlights anything about any person about what you need to know.”

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

The provider had effective systems and process to ensure key information was communicated to people and their relatives or representatives. Key information, including information about key staff members at the service and upcoming events was displayed on notice boards in communal areas. The provider’s statement of purpose and welcome pack was also easily accessible. The provider had a ‘Family Admission Pack’ in place to support relatives and those close to people during the admission to the service. A monthly newsletter was provided to people and their families, giving an overview of life and activities within the home from the previous month.

The registered manager understood their duties under the Accessible Information Standard (AIS) and made sure alternative communication formats were available, when required. They told us nobody currently needed additional support.

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.

The provider operated a ‘Resident of the day’ process. This process involved ensuring personal care needs had been met, discussing their general wellbeing and undertaking clinical observations where appropriate. People’s records were checked to ensure they were current and accurately reflected their assessed needs. The records showed people were asked if they were happy with different elements of care and support they received, for example the activity provision, the cleanliness of their room and the meals.

People told us they felt comfortable to share their views. We saw meetings were held for people and their relatives, together with periodic surveys to gain feedback. The provider operated a digital system for visitors to use to sign in and out of the service. This system allowed people to provide immediate feedback at the time of their visit should they wish.

The service had a system in place to receive and act on complaints. We saw evidence of complaints being addressed. This meant feedback was continuously used to drive improvements promoting trust and confidence for people within the service.

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

The service supported people to access the services they needed to meet their care needs. This included supporting access to healthcare professionals such as their GP, community nurses and dieticians. No concerns were raised by people or their relatives about accessing healthcare and records showed referrals were made when required.

The environment was accessible to people with a range of mobility needs, and suitable equipment was provided to support individual requirements. There were clear protocols in place to guide staff in emergencies. We observed people were supported to access outside areas of the service by staff where they requested to do so.

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, service management and staff focused on enhancing and positively impacting people’s lives, so they had the same opportunities as people who did not use services. People were encouraged to make choices to support their wellbeing, including socialising and maintaining relationships with friends and family.The provider’s Nominated Individual told us, “We want to give people the best possible experience.”

Staff had received training on equality and diversity to support them to identify and address discrimination. Staff ensured people had good outcomes regardless of their needs and mobility. This was evident during activity provision where the staff ensured it was inclusive to all.

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.

Where appropriate staff had discussed with people and relatives how they would like to be supported at the end of their life and this was recorded. There were Treatment Escalation Plans (TEPs) in place which informed staff or other professionals around decisions relating to resuscitation and other treatment choices in the event of a medical emergency. The service had a ‘Last Paragraph’ document which was completed by people and their relatives if they wished to. This personalised document contained information about choices and advanced decisions at the time of and after a person’s death.

Staff received training in end of life care and knew how to support people, considering their individual needs and wishes.The registered manager told us they worked with relevant healthcare professionals when people were nearing the end of their lives.