Ingleby 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The provider had made some improvements since the last inspection, and they were no longer in breach of legal regulations in relation to person centred care. However, we identified a breach of legal regulation in relation to regulation 17. There was limited evidence of people’s involvement in their care.

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

Records did not evidence that people and/or their legal representatives had been involved in decisions about their care and support. Care records had improved. However, they still lacked personalised detail, for example, in relation to people’s histories, preferences and support strategies if people were distressed or anxious. The regional manager said, “The idea is to sit with the person and review their care plan but it’s not as embedded as it should be.”

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

choice and continuity.

Inconsistencies and gaps in care records meant there was a risk people’s needs had not been assessed. One person who experienced seizures did not have a care plan or risk assessment in place. This was addressed when we spoke to the management team.

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

Care records were electronic but not yet accessible for people. There was no evidence people were involved in the reviewing of their care plans. The regional manager said, “We are moving through the element of reviewing using ‘Resident of the Day’, but we are not at the point of tailoring it to people and including them or their representative.”

The menu had pictures of meals on it, but this did not correspond to the meals that were being served. We discussed this with the interim manager who told us they would ensure pictures on menus corresponded to the meals beings served.

People’s communication needs were documented, however, some of them lacked detail.

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.

There was no evidence people and relatives were involved in planning their care. The interim manager said, “It does happen, but it doesn’t get documented, we need to change the mindset of staff to document discussions.”

This had also been raised in residents and relative’s surveys in March 2025 but there was no evidence action had been taken in response to feedback.

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

Staff knew people well and recognised if they needed the input of health care professionals. Referrals were made in a timely manner, and staff followed the advice and guidance of external professionals.

The provider did not always actively listen to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

People, and their legal representatives were not involved in the planning of their care.

Activities had improved and the activities co-ordinator was spending one to one time with people in their rooms if they did not engage in group activities.

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 include specific information about people’s future plans, significant life events or what was important to them. Some improvements had been made and some records included that the person and their relatives did not wish to discuss end of life care at that time.

End of life training was available and had been completed by most staff.