Pinglenook Residential 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 under this provider. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 62 (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 choices and they did not always work in partnership with people. There was mixed feedback from relatives regarding formal reviews of their family member's care. One told us, "I had a chat in the office recently and saw the care plan on a chart. It looked ok and i could see fluid intake notes and recordings of their weight." Another relative said, "I've never had anything to do with their care plan really other than when they came here." Relatives did confirm there was effective communication via phone calls, and during visits to their family members about any change in needs or sharing of essential information. The provider told us they were scheduling formal reviews after taking up the role recently with one review taking place during the assessment.

Care plans were detailed and reflected people's interests, likes and dislikes, and described tasks they liked to do for themselves. For example, one person enjoyed helping in the garden and was provided with equipment to do so and appropriate supervision. The person told us they enjoyed they enjoyed the activity and were able to utilise their gardening skills. Another person's care plan recorded which personal care tasks they could carry out themselves, and their feedback confirmed staff supported them to undertake those tasks independently.

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. People’s care and treatment was well documented and shared effectively within the service and with healthcare professionals. Necessary and timely referrals were made to other agencies where required. The manager and staff worked in partnership with healthcare professionals and information had been updated in people’s care plans. External professionals spoke positively about the continuity of care provided by the service. One described the service as ‘working effectively and appropriately with us.’

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The provider was aware of the Accessible Information Standard (AIS) and used different forms such as picture cards of meal choices to ensure people could communicate their preference of meal.

The providers systems and process for people and relatives to share feedback and ideas was inconsistent. People did recall a recent ‘one off meeting’ to discuss activities, but no other meetings had occurred recently. The provider and manager told us these meetings were being scheduled which their internal action plan confirmed. People and relatives did confirm they were freely able to speak with the manager and staff, and did feel listened to and involved in the service. Staff meetings did take place regularly.

A complaints policy was in place, and this was conspicuously displayed in the service. People were encouraged to raise concerns if they felt necessary. No recent formal complaints had been made. However, some relatives said minor issues had been dealt with satisfactorily and some had not. Several commendations from relatives over recent months had been received, all of which were recorded and responded to.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The manager told us they had forged good relationships with health professionals and commissioners since they started. They and the provider had worked with the local authority on a previous action plan to achieve the necessary improvement that they identified. The manager was aware which health professional or service they needed to contact and when, if any concern or risk was identified.

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 and relatives overall feedback confirmed people were treated as individuals, and equally and fairly. We identified no concerns in relation to people’s protected characteristics being upheld. Staff had received equality and diversity training.

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. Staff had received end of life training. Discussions with people on their wishes and preferences for the future had taken place and these were recorded in plans of care. However, with lapses in formal reviews of care it was being assumed these wishes were still current.