Plane Tree Court

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

People’s individual needs were met. Staff received training and had their competencies periodically checked and assessed.

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.

People received person-centred care that was tailored to their needs. One person told us, “All the staff are good, caring and they understand my needs.” Another person told us, “They don’t rush me; they give me plenty of time to get up.” One relative told us, “This feels very much like it is my Mum’s home.” Staff had good understanding of people’s needs and how to support these. However, this was not always reflected in people’s care plans.

People received care tailored to their needs. People we spoke to were mostly not aware of discussions around their care and preferences. One person told us, “I don’t recall any discussions about care planning.” However, people told us, staff understood and recognised their needs. One person told us” They[staff]know my needs.” One relative told us,” We discussed the care plan when we first came in.”

People were offered choices and their input in their own care was sought by staff. People felt they could speak and raise concerns if required. One person told us, “I would speak to a carer or someone higher up if I was worried.” The provider had strong links with stakeholders and professionals to ensure that outcomes for people were met. One stakeholder told us,” We needed to move someone who was end of life into a nursing home immediately. My first thought was registered manager name as they will always go over and above to help people in need and they certainly did that and the person did not die within a few hours as was thought.”

People received information in a way that was tailored to their communication needs. For example, we saw an easy read format of the complaints procedure displayed in the communal area.

The registered manager had a good understanding of the Accessible Information Standard. People’s communication needs were included in their care plans. However, some of this information was more detailed than the others.

Staff had an overall good understanding of people’s communication needs and knew how to meet these. For example, we saw a person who due to their medical needs was unbale to speak and staff provided them with a white board to write on it to communicate effectively.

People told us they were involved in their care and staff and management were approachable and would listen to them. One person told us,” I would speak to a carer or someone higher up if I was worried.” Another person told us,” I would speak to a doctor if I was worried but here are also people who try and help.”

People’s needs were periodically reviewed, and their feedback sought after. We saw evidence of surveys and questionnaires completed by people. The provider organised monthly residents’ and a relatives’ meetings. There was also relatives panel which families could attend too.

The provider felt passionate about supporting people to speak up and gather their views and we saw some evidence about action taken prompted by people speaking up and sharing their feedback.

People were supported to access services when needed including access to GP and specialist services such as the Speech and Language Therapist service. One person told us,” Staff are professional and on the ball with medication and hospital appointments.” One relative told us about how staff supported their loved one with their complex medical condition, “We were told my loved would not survive a move to the hospital. Staff look after them here.” People told us they were involved in their day-to-day care.

During the inspection we found some people did not have access to the same opportunities as other people. For example, people who were staying in their bedrooms had less opportunities to attend organised activities or have 1:2:1 opportunity for engagement. We made a recommendation to the provider to review access to activities and social interaction for people who found it difficult to partake in these.

We also observed that that people who needed assistance with their meals received their meals later than people who were able to eat independently. One person told us, “The food is very good, it could be warmer, but they’ve got a lot of people t serve.” We told the registered manager about this, and they had acted promptly on our feedback.

People were supported to access the services they needed. Staff and the provider told us about working with professionals and stakeholders to support and meet outcomes for people. For example, District nurses, GPs, physiotherapists, tissues viability nurses and the End-of-Life care team.

We received a high volume of very positive feedback from the stakeholders regarding the provider. One stakeholder told us,” I have dealt with a significant number of families and patients who have been placed in Plane Tree Court ad I have not received a complaint regarding provision of care, nor the attitude of staff. Patients settle well, and families appear to build strong relationships with staff.”

People were supported to plan for their future including their end of life wishes. The provider worked with a locally developed end of life care programme called Stockport Excellence in End-of-Life Care to support people at the end of their lives. The registered manager felt passionate about ensuring that people who were at the end of their lives received good care. One of the stakeholders told us, “Plane Tree Court is enthusiastic and keen to ensure that the end of life care they deliver is proactive and individualised. [Registered Manager’s name] ensures end of life care remains on high list of priorities.” Staff respected people’s advance wishes and had a good understanding of these.

For example, one staff member told us, “We have all we need to support people with their end-of-life care. We think about people’s faith.” However, people’s care plans were not always detailed regarding their advance care wishes and the support they wished to receive at the end of their lives.