Cams Ridge 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.

The provider and legal entity have changed since our last inspection; this is the first assessment under the new provider. 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 service 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 were person centred; this enabled staff to provide personalised care and support. Staff knew people’s likes and dislikes. We saw staff talking with people and engaging in meaningful conversations. People told us staff were genuinely interested in things that mattered to them. For example, a person told us, “I love talking to the staff, they are all brilliant…. they know what I like to do and how to make me laugh when I am upset.”

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People told us they had access to health and social care professionals as and when required and documents confirmed this. We saw the team worked together, had regular meetings and used handover documentation to ensure continuity of care. Staff had completed training and understood the Equality Act.

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

People’s care plans were written in plain English and explored peoples preferred methods of communication. Documentation showed, where there were barriers to communication for people, different methods of communication were explored such as objects of reference, communication cards and writing. We saw staff, adjusting the level, pace and tone of their speech. We observed staff speaking clearly and calmly with people, offering choices and respecting people’s decisions.

The service 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.

People were encouraged to provide feedback. There was a ‘you said, we did’ board which detailed actions taken in response to people’s suggestions. For example, people said they wanted to be around children. The service had contacted a local preschool, arranging for children to visit the service regularly to spend time with people, talking and playing games. People and those closest to them told us they felt listened to. For example, a person told us, “I have never needed to make a complaint, but I feel they would act if I did…. I asked to go out regularly to get some fish and chips, we now do this. I am very happy and I now call here my home.”

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

People told us they had access to the support, treatment and care they needed. We saw the service arranged transport, enabling people to attend appointments and access the local community. The service was well connected with the local community; people had access to local places of worship or were visited by members of local religious groups.

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.

Documents showed, people’s protected characterises were identified as part of their pre-admission assessment and these were detailed within people’s care plans. Staff received equity and diversity training. Staff we spoke with demonstrated they had a robust understanding of equality and were able to recognise signs of inequality and prevent discrimination. We observed there was an inclusive culture within the service. We saw people with multiple needs playing skittles, staff ensured everyone could participate.

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.

At the time of the inspection, no one using the service was receiving end of life care; However, some people were receiving palliative care. The registered manager worked closely with people, family members and healthcare professionals to help ensure their needs were met, and they would receive appropriate support at the end of their lives.