Ivybank 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 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.

Leaders said they have been providing training to staff around record keeping and have started to see some improvements. The registered manager said they ensured person centred care by regularly reviewing and updating care plans with people, through ‘resident of the day’ reviews or following any changes to their needs. Records showed support plans reflected people’s needs and preferences. However, daily records did not always reflect how person-centred care was delivered to people. For example, records did not consistently show the support given or choices offered to people. The provider said they were working with staff to improve record keeping.

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.

Leaders recognised where improvements were needed to ensure people received joined up care with health partners. Staff were confident about seeking healthcare advice for people if they were concerned. We observed health professionals visited the service and people’s records were updated following their visit.

The registered manager said a system was in place to ensure people received continuity in care from the same staff.

However, one GP reported improvements in staff communication but noted that, during out-of-hours services, staff did not always seek advice promptly. The registered manager said staff are now seeking health advice when appropriate and said they were confident staff take action required.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. For example, the registered manager arranged for one person to use talking books (audio recordings of books read aloud) so they could listen instead of reading. The registered manager also said they information was provided in large print for people who needed it. Staff also supported people in making informed choices about meals by showing plated examples of the food options available.

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.

One person we spoke with said they felt comfortable raising concerns with the management.

Systems were in place for people to feedback, for example regular people and relative meetings were held and surveys were offered to relatives. We saw the provider shared ‘you said, and we did’ information to inform people of actions taken from their feedback.

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

Staff understood people’s right to equity in accessing care and support. The provider arranged for appropriate equipment for people with mobility difficulties to move around. Leaders told us raised beds had been created in the garden so that people could continue to enjoy their gardening hobbies.

There was an on-call system covered by the senior management team to ensure out-of-hours support was 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’s care and support was individualised and there were no concerns raised in relation to equity of experience or discrimination in the service.

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 said they had completed an accredited end-of- life care programme to enhance their skills and confidence in supporting people at this stage. Staff had also received end-of-life training, and care plans clearly recorded people’s wishes.

There were clear systems and processes for ensuring decisions for ‘Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation’ (DNACPR) and ‘Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment’ (ReSPECT) were made in line with the relevant legislation and were appropriate.