Cotswolds Rise 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 service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (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 had personalised care plans which outlined the care and support they needed and preferred. Staff had access to the care plans via electronic devices and could check guidance easily. We observed care being provided from staff who knew people’s needs well. Care was being delivered in a person-centred way. We observed people spending time doing what they wanted to do at their own pace. All of the communal spaces at the service were being used where we saw people following their own interests.

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. Staff worked with other services to make sure people received a continuity in their care. There were good working relationships established with different services. This meant people had continuity with their care and were seen by professionals who knew them and understood their needs. Staff knew who to contact for advice and guidance and this was done in a responsive way. Internal systems were established to review people’s needs and make sure people had access to specialist services such as falls clinics where needed. The home manager had involved external specialists in reviewing care provision for people with dementia. Improvements had been identified for areas such as the environment.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The home manager shared with us various examples of how they provided information in different ways for people’s needs. For example, information was translated into different languages. We found some pictorial information was used to tell people about daily menus. People’s communication needs were clearly recorded in their care plan and guidance was shared with staff on preferred communication methods.

The provider had a complaints policy which detailed how they would respond to complaints received. We found whilst people had raised complaints and had their concerns investigated, clear outcomes had not always been shared with complainants. For example, letters to complainants did not clearly share whether concerns raised were substantiated or not. In addition, the provider had not shared information with people about where to go if they were not satisfied with how the provider had managed their complaint. The home manager showed us a template letter which the provider had prepared with the information for the local government ombudsman included. However, this template letter had not been used to respond to all complaints received. The home manager told us they would make sure this template with the information would be used going forward.

People could raise concerns or ideas in ‘resident and relative meetings’. These were held regularly and chaired by the home manager. Minutes were kept of the discussions and any actions for the service were added to service improvement plans. The home manager told us they had bought a new notice board to be placed in the foyer for a ‘You said, We did’ feature. This would enable the service to publish ideas or suggestions for improvement received from people and relatives and the action taken in response.

The provider made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The service was a newly purpose-built home which had been designed to accommodate people living with various needs. For example, all rooms were en-suite, corridors were wide and the whole service was accessible for people with mobility difficulties.

The home manager told us they were reviewing how they could improve the environment for people living with dementia. For example, they had identified the service needed better signage to help people find rooms such as the toilet. Many people enjoyed walking around their environment. The home manager said they wanted to improve areas at the end of corridors to provide people with engagement and points of interest.

Staff worked with local GP surgeries to organise a weekly visit from healthcare professionals. This meant people with mobility difficulties had a visit in their room and did not have to struggle to get out to the surgery. Staff sourced other services for people to have in the home. For example, community nurses visited, chiropody and occupational health therapy.

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. The home manager was experienced in managing care services and knew where and when people might experience barriers to care. Having a daily heads of department meeting enabled the management team to review people’s experiences and identify any delays or difficulties. The provider had resources available to signpost staff to information on protecting people’s human rights and anti-discriminatory ways of working.

People we spoke with did not raise any concerns about this quality statement.

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. People were able to record their wishes for end of life care and choose where they wanted to be cared for. For example, some people had chosen not to be admitted to hospital and wanted to stay at the service if possible and appropriate. If people had expressed wishes about cardiopulmonary resuscitation, this information was clearly recorded on the front page of their care plan. This meant staff were made aware of these wishes whenever they logged onto the electronic care plan system.

At the time of the assessment there was nobody receiving end of life care. However, we observed some people had been assessed as ‘palliative’ and nearing the end of their lives. Staff had obtained ‘just in case’ medicines to make sure they could support people with pain management.

We found records of reflective meetings that had been held for staff when people had recently died. Staff were able to speak about their thoughts of what had happened and talk through their feelings with the home manager. Staff told us they appreciated the home manager’s approach during this time and felt there was good support.