Vine House Older Persons Residence

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

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 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.

During our visit we saw many examples of good positive communication between people and staff. Staff displayed a strong understanding of the people they supported and there seemed to be mutual respect and genuine regard. People were responded to appropriately, according to the circumstance. For example, requests for support to the bathroom were met with quiet acknowledgment and timely assistance.

People were consistently included and asked their opinions and views on a range of topics.

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.

Leaders and staff actively support people to maintain links with families and friends to support inclusion and continuity in people’s lives.

A staff member told us, “We help people maintain relationships by assisting to make phone calls, write letters and emails, and receive and entertain guests. We are happy to receive guests and groups for mealtimes and other celebrations.”

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

The provider was able to give information to people in formats which suited their needs and communication styles.

We observed staff explaining information to people and their families in a clear and patient way, checking the person’s understanding as the conversation progressed.

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 was at the home every week and sat with people to chat and ask them about their care. People’s voices were listened to, and they could make changes to the care they receive. One person said, “The boss even comes to have a chat with me, and he does this quite often which I appreciate.”

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

People had access to a call system and told us calls were answered quickly. Staff told us they had enough time to respond to call bells and made sure people didn’t have to wait. One staff said, “It’s important to quickly find out what they need.”

Leaders and staff 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. For example, those with limited mobility or cognitive decline were actively supported and encouraged by staff to engage in activities in communal areas.

The emphasis on person-centred supported a culture which ensured equitable experiences and outcomes.

The provider and managers were alert to potential inequality issues and recognised staff from different backgrounds and this approach applied to acknowledging people’s diversity and individuality.

Staff understood their role in ensuring people's equality and diversity needs were met. Training records showed that there was compliance in completing Equality and Diversity training. People could access care and support when they needed to and in a way that worked for them.

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.

People were supported to plan for their future needs.

People’s end of life wishes were sought as part of the assessment process. Information regarding advanced planning, such as the decision to have a Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR), was obtained and included in care plan guidance for staff.

Staff supported people at the end of their lives with compassion and dignity.

People’s care plans captured people’s wishes and plans for the future that detailed people’s preferences for support. Nobody was receiving end-of-life care at the time of the inspection however leaders and staff were able to clearly describe how people had been cared for in the past.