Pine View 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 Requires Improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 53 (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 always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment or that they received consistent person-centered care. People’s holistic needs had not been fully assessed to ensure they were met. For example, 1 person’s first language was not English, the care plans lacked guidance on how to fully support this person in relation to their communication. We also observed staff attempting to speak with this person in English, but they did not understand and instead of trying to establish what was being communicated staff just redirected the person.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of the people who used the service and how they supported them to integrate with the local community. For example, despite the service specialising in supporting people living with dementia, they had no dedicated care plans in place to help staff understand how people’s dementia individually affected them and what support they required. Furthermore, the service was unable to demonstrate they supported people to feel integrated with their local community.

We checked whether the provider was meeting the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The Accessible Information Standard tells organisations what they have to do to help ensure people with a disability or sensory loss, and in some circumstances, their carers, get information in a way they can understand it. It also says that people should get the support they need in relation to communication. The provider had a process in place where accessible information could be made available, when needed.

We were not assured of people’s involvement in decision making due to our findings around consent, and staff not always documenting sufficient information when people experienced emotional distress. However, there were systems in place to seek feedback from people living at the service. One person told us, “If something is wrong, I would tell 1 or 2 of the staff here, I would have no hesitation, but I don’t know who is in charge.” A relative told us they were not aware of any relative meetings with the provider.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The service had made appropriate referrals to external health professionals such as the falls team and occupational therapy. However, the provider had failed to identify contradictory information regarding a person’s dietary needs. Staff had not sought clarification from the speech and language team to ensure a person’s modified diet was correct, to reduce the risk of choking.

We could not be assured staff and leaders actively listened to all information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experiences and outcomes. Care records did not always provide guidance on how to manage known risks.

People were not always 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. Whilst people had records in place to determine their resuscitation wishes associated care plans were basic and lacked detailed person-centered information.