Snydale 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.

This is the first assessment for this service under this provider. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 61 (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.

There was not always a holistic approach to providing person-centred care and people’s need for social stimulation was not met. People and their relatives had mixed opinions on whether there were enough activities to keep people stimulated and meaningfully occupied, especially those with a cognitive impairment.

People’s care plans were not always accurate and up to date which could impact on their ability to be at the centre of their care.

Many people were observed either sitting in the lounge or on their own in their bedrooms, with only basic stimulation from televisions because staffing levels did not allow staff time to have meaningful interactions with people. This put people at risk of social isolation. For example, during the first day of our inspection we saw 2 people remained in their bedrooms all day, laid on their bed or in an armchair, with no activities and limited interaction.

Some people were offered the opportunity to take part in activities, and we witnessed a nostalgic music session with a member of staff in the lounge area for half an hour.

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.

Although some systems and processes were in place to ensure people had access to health care professionals when they needed them, we also identified some shortfalls. Staff showed an understanding of people’s diverse needs and tried their best to support them. However, improvements were required in relation to accuracy of people’s records and information sharing to ensure that care was consistently joined up.

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

Although most people’s communication needs were met, and staff understood people, we saw no evidence of care plans or any other documentation being available in alternative formats, to support people with their individual needs.

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.

There were systems and processes in place to obtain feedback, for example, people and their relatives had been involved in meetings, and relevant actions had taken place following these.

Systems were in place for managing complaints. People and relatives knew how to raise a complaint if they needed to; however, 1 relative told us about their ongoing complaint which had still not been fully addressed from over 6 months ago.

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

We raised a concern with the manager about 2 people who had been identified as requiring additional support around nutrition, which had not been actioned on day 1 of the inspection. The manager actioned this immediately.

Overall, people had access to health professionals and services, for example, district nurses, the GP and emergency services, if required.

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.

People did not always have positive experiences of care. For example, some people, especially those with cognitive impairment lacked meaningful engagement and had to wait to receive care and support. A lack of robust oversight meant this had not always been identified or addressed by the provider.

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.

The service supported people to plan for their future, and we saw evidence of sensitive conversations around people’s end of life care needs. Do not attempt resuscitation (DNAR) decisions were documented and accessible to staff.