Palmerston House 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 remained Good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to person centred care. Improvements were found at this inspection, and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

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.

People’s care plans detailed their individual needs as well as capturing a good level of personal history to better provide person centred care. Likes, dislikes, desired outcomes and goals were all clearly listed. Bedrooms were decorated with items people had brought with them.

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.

Systems and processes ensured a continuity of care and enabled access to relevant health services. Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and supported them to attend external appointments ensuring any reasonable adjustments, such as equipment and accessible travel arrangements, were put in place as required.

A professional told us, “The service work closely with social workers, healthcare professionals, families, and community services to provide coordinated, person-centred care.”

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

We saw new versions of the services, statement of purpose, service user guide and welcome pack. There were two versions, a standard version and a specially developed dementia friendly version. Good use of pictures and accessible language was used throughout. The service was in the midst of rolling this out people using the service.

Staff spoke to people kindly in language that was easy to understand, items were displayed easily. For example, at meal times condiments were brought out and shown to people so that they could easily decide if they wished to use them, staff spoke to people at eye level bending down when needed to aid communication.

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 had effective systems to capture feedback and track actions taken as a result. For example, there was a tracker that tracked complaints, this captured relevant details such as summaries, investigation outcomes, dates of responses, learning and improvements made. This enabled the service to actively learn from feedback and contributed to improvements.

Whilst people at the service felt listened to relatives reported that feedback given was not always acted on, but that the manager was always available. The registered manager assured us that they would be working to engage more with relatives and respond to queries in a more timely fashion.

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

People had access to health services when they needed them. The provider had a good relationship with the local GP, who worked well with the home to complete reviews. Where issues arose outside of this, staff acted promptly to get people the help they needed, such as district nurse teams, SALT (Speech and Language Therapists) teams, advocates and others.

Staff and leaders 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, an IMCA described how the service supported a person who had experienced significant trauma, which had previously led to distressed behaviours. The person had moved from another service that was unable to meet their needs safely. The advocate reported that since moving to this service, the person had shown a marked improvement, with a reduction in distressed behaviours and increased engagement with care and support. The advocate told us, “I feel they have a good understanding and have worked patiently to gain the trust of this person.”

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 had recently identified improvements were required with their end-of-life care plans as well as DNACPR (Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation) protocols. These were being actively working on, and progress was being made to strengthen this area. The registered manager assured us that this would be implemented fully soon.