Ivy House Residential 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 newly registered service. 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.

People told us they received a personalised care service. One person told us, “It’s the little simple things staff do that make such a difference. So, when I had a cream cake, staff know how much I like them, but I get in a real mess. Without even asking, as I ate my cake, a warm wet little cloth just arrives at my side! Also, one day they brought me some honey to have on my porridge which was fine, but I explained that I always used to put golden syrup in porridge and the next day – well – I had golden syrup.”

Care plans were detailed people’s life history and preferences. However, sometimes discussions over their care choices had been recorded with relatives rather than with the person themselves. This meant the person was not always placed at the centre of their care and treatment.

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.

We found some referrals had been made to other healthcare services. However, where the registered manager told us they had been informed there was no need to make a referral to the dieticians for one person’s weight loss, there was no evidence to support this decision making. For another person, timely medical advice had not been obtained to help inform the decisions regarding their care.

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

Care plans provided information on people’s communication needs. Staff understood these and were able to tell us how people communicated, including when they needed to rely on people’s body language as they could not always reliably say what they needed.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

People and relatives told us they felt able to raise any concerns. One relative told us, “If I have any concerns I just pop over to the office and they sort it out quickly.” Feedback from surveys showed people and their relatives had commented positively about living at Ivy House Residential Care Home.

Leaders told us one complaint was in progress at the time of our assessment. CQC are not able to investigate complaints on behalf of people however, we review how they are managed as part of our assessment. Procedures were in place to manage complaints.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People were generally supported to access other services, such as the GP and district nursing services when they needed them. However, for one person, on one occasion medical advice had not been obtained in a timely manner.

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.

Care plans assessed any needs people had that were associated with disabilities or health related needs. This helped to reduce inequality.

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. However, staff training to support this process was not up to date.

The registered manager told us no-one was currently being supported with end-of-life care. Whilst care plans reflected choices people had wished to share regarding their future wishes only 3 staff had completed the provider’s training in this area, with one of those having now expired and the other 2 needing to be refreshed. This meant there was limited assurances that staff had been provided with the skills and knowledge to fully support people in this area in line with good practice.