Chyvarhas Residential and Nursing 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 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.

The registered manger and staff team provided person centred care focused on people’s individual needs. Care planning information was accurate and informative. It provided staff with sufficient guidance to ensure support was provided in accordance with people’s needs and wishes. People and their relatives had been involved in the development and review of care plans.

The service used a digital care planning and recording system. Records demonstrated care had been provided as planned and the quality of record keeping was regularly audited and reviewed to ensure accuracy. Staff said, “I think the care plans are good and they have the ‘about me’ section so they are really good and you can get talking to people about the information you have found there and everything is easy to find and it tells you all you need to know.”

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.

The service had systems to share information accurately with NHS partners or other care providers to ensure continuity of care. This included information about people’s needs, wishes and communication preferences.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The provider shared information accurately with people their relatives and involved health professionals. Staff understood how and when was best to present information to people to support their effective decision making.

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.

The registered manager valued people’s feedback and suggestions. A residents meeting was held during the first day of our inspection and minutes of the previous meeting showed suggestions had been acted upon. People told us, “I’ve never complained, there’s nothing to complain about” and relatives said, “[My relative] will say if something could be better. They value her input”.

The provider’s complaints system was effective. Records showed issues raised had been appropriately investigated to identify any areas of learning or improvement.

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

The registered manager and staff team supported people to access health care support when needed. People told us they were able to see a dentist, GP and other health professionals when they wished. Where professionals provided care staff with advice and guidance this was incorporated into the person’s care plan.

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 said they were treated fairly and enjoyed the range of activities available in the service. Their comments included, “They go out of their way to do things for you. If you are interested in something they will arrange it for you” and “They bring in children throughout the year which I like very much. I get taken out in the garden when it’s warm”.

Staff told us, “I do feel people have enough to do here and it depends on the activity, but they do lots of different ones here”, “We have 2 activities ladies here, both have an amazing reputation with residents. There is always something going on, they take the time to do things with people who stay in their rooms” and “[The registered manager] does do a lot of work with the community, stuff with national trust, cake competitions with another local service”.

The registered manager encouraged and supported engagement with the local community and had made arrangements to host community meetings, support groups and social events. In addition, the service was working with partner organisations to further expand the range of activities available in the service. Staff told us a Virtual Reality sandcastle building competition was planned for the week after our inspection.

Staff and leaders treated people as individuals and varied how they presented information in response to their preferences and needs. Staff knew people well and were able to describe in detail people’s individual communication styles.

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’s care plans included information about their wishes and preferences in relation to end of life care. On the first day on the inspection a relative of a person who had recently died in the service visited to thank the staff team for the care they had provided in their relative’s last days. Professionals told us, “They are good at end-of-life care and have a good understanding of the person’s wishes”.