Selwood 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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated 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.

We saw person-centred interactions between people and staff, and it was clear from the way staff approached individuals that they knew them well and understood how best to support them.

Care plans reflected people’s choices and preferences and were updated should additional information about people’s preferences be learned.
Relatives gave mixed feedback about how well their family members were known by staff at the service. They said, “They now know her very well. I was away for a few weeks and didn’t worry. They are very on the ball lately.” However, a second relative said, “The challenge is the turnover of staff, there are a few regulars, but lots of new faces. It’s not a criticism of the home.”

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.

Despite some challenges, as mentioned above, care provision and continuity of care was provided by the service in response to people’s needs. The local frailty team and GP surgeries supported the service and appropriate referrals were made for support; however, these were sometimes late, unclear or doubled up causing some confusion. However, people had access to healthcare professionals on a regular basis. The registered manager had arranged to meet with the surgery and planned to meet with the frailty team after our inspection to address any issues that had arisen.

Staff also utilised services such as 111 to obtain healthcare support outside of surgery hours ensuring people received timely support.

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

Care plans recorded information about people’s communication needs, whether they had hearing or visual impairments and needs associated with conditions such as dementia. For example, a person had reverted to using their birth language at times rather than speaking in English. People were supported with information presented according to their needs.

Meetings were held every month for people and their relatives where information was shared by the provider.

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.

Quality assurance questionnaires were issued to people and relatives twice per year. These were used to gauge views about the service and gave an opportunity for people to feedback anonymously should they wish to. The most recent questionnaire was issued 2 weeks after the new registered manager commenced in post giving a baseline of people’s views and a starting point for improvements to be made.

People and relatives’ meetings were held monthly and were used both for provider information sharing and for participants to raise their own concerns for discussion. Outcomes from meetings were shared once addressed.

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

The provider ensured equipment was available to support people and meet their needs. It was noted when the registered manager commenced the provider did not always supply items such as foot stools or specialist seating, however this has improved and at the time of our inspection healthcare professionals told us all equipment needed was in place.

Activity sessions were provided; schedules were shared with people and their relatives. People chose to attend activities and if they did not, options of having 1-to-1 activities in own rooms or opting out completely were available.

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.

People received person centred support which met their needs including those associated with the protected characteristics of the Equality Act 2010.

All staff had been trained in equality and diversity and understood potential inequalities and worked to ensure these were not present in the service. Almost all staff responded with positive feedback about the provider and registered manager and felt they were treated well. They also believed staff were treated in the same way.

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 registered manager was proactive in supporting people to plan for the future and for ensuring their end-of-life wishes were known. In fact, when a person was assessed for admission on a respite basis, the registered manager ensured their end-of-life wishes were included in the assessment as frequently, when people have respite care, their relatives are away, and this information is vital to ensure people’s needs are met.

All care staff completed training in end-of-life care.