Carr Croft 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has changed to Requires Improvement.

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 54 (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 and choices, and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People’s risk assessments had been reviewed; however, care plans had not always been updated in line with risk those assessments. Information was not always recorded in the correct place or was at times conflicting between documents. This meant they did not always fully identify the care people needed. Care records varied in evidencing a person-centred approach. Staff were not always able to describe what was meant by person- centred care. Despite this, most people and relatives felt staff knew them well and were mostly satisfied with the care they received.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

Care was not always well coordinated or delivered consistently. There were examples of partnership working with external professionals, such as regular GP and district nurse visits. However, some care records contained contradictory or incomplete information, particularly around repositioning, diet modification, pressure ulcer risk management and mobility, which could present risk and affect continuity of care.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

No significant concerns were raised by people or their relatives in relation to communication during our assessment, however prior to our assessment some relatives had raised concerns to us in relation to communication. People fed back to us they were unaware they had a care plan or records relating to their care or treatment.

During our assessment, we found there was a written menu, but no pictorial options were provided for those people unable to read it. When staff were asked about people’s preferences for those who were unable to communicate, they told us, they based choices on what people had received in the past. This meant people were not offered options in different formats to enable them to make a choice.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result. The provider had invited relatives, staff and professionals to complete surveys to seek feedback. We did not see evidence of action plans or a follow up after a survey was completed. We could not see evidence of how feedback was gained and then used to help improve the service. The provider had a complaints policy in place and managed these in line with the policy.

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

People had appointments with their GP, nurses and opticians and other medical professionals when required. Out of hours support was in place, covered by the management team to ensure staff always had access to advice and support so people could be appropriately cared for.  People told us the provider supported them to access care and support when required. Once person told us, “Staff call the doctor or nurse”.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

We identified shortfalls within the care planning arrangements. Gaps in care planning can affect how people experience care and the quality of support they receive. This was discussed with the management team, as further improvements were needed in this area. The management team were receptive to our findings, with an action plan put in place to update people’s care plan information. Care was not always personalised or delivered in line with people’s preferences. Therefore, we were not assured people were always supported to achieve their individual goals, for example, in relation to activities and engaging with the local community. Some people and relatives raised concerns around not accessing meaningful activities. Comments included “I was a snooker man, I miss playing, I would love a game of snooker or even a game of pool”, “We do very little” and “Could do with having more to do”.

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.

Care records did not always include specific information about people’s future plans, significant life events or what was important to them. Some staff told us they had not had training on supporting people with end-of-life care. The training information sent to us also identified staff were not trained in end-of-life care.