Archived: Nerissa House

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 Inadequate: This meant services were not planned or delivered in ways that met people’s needs.

The service was in breach of legal regulations in relation to person centred care. The provider failed to involve people, their loved ones and other professionals in the planning and delivery of care and support to meet the needs and aspirations of people living at the service.

This service scored 25 (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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

We identified restrictive practices within the service, impacting on the level and quality of person-centred care provided. People’s support plans were not person centred and did not meet individuals’ needs and goals. They did not contain enough information for staff to provide safe and appropriate support.

Families and other relevant persons had not been involved in developing or reviewing support plan and were not always informed about decisions and information regarding their loved ones.

There were significant shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

The service did not understand the diverse needs of the service users. This meant people’s care and treatment was not delivered in a way that met their assessed needs. The provider did not work well with other partners including commissioners to enable positive outcomes and good continuity of care.

Most staff had received some specialised online training; however, there had been no observation of practice in the workplace or checks on the effectiveness of the learning completed. The training of many staff had expired, without refresher training having been organised.

The provider did not supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Information about care was not available in formats that could be understood by all people using the service. There had been a data breach relating to information shared with a family member. This had not been reported to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) at the time of the assessment. Staff used their own devices to access electronic care records; there was no risk assessment of how this was managed.

The provider did not make it easy for people to share feedback on the service and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

The provider did not recognise the importance of seeking feedback from people and their relatives about the care and support provided as part of the ongoing development of people’s care and support plans. Staff told us they had reported and raised concerns about people’s care with the provider. However, this usually did not get resolved.

The manager told us they were investigating an incident related to the use of restraint which had been ongoing for a number of weeks but were not able to explain actions taken or documented.

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

The standards of care people received were not always tailored to their individual wishes and preferences and did not ensure equality in access. The building was not accessible to everyone, and some people did not have access to outside space. Out of hours support was provided by the same staff member at all times.

Staff and leaders did not listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not tailored in response to this. The standards of care people received were not always tailored to their individual wishes and preferences and did not ensure equality in access.

Staff training in equality and diversity had expired. People’s support plans did not detail how they considered people’s protected characteristics and conditions on people’s DoLS authorisations.

People were not 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 did not work to a recognised model that potentially would support people to explore options around moving on from living in a residential care setting for younger adults. There was no evidence of discussions with people and their families of how they would be supported in the future.