Haresbrook Park 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 64 (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, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care planning and daily care recording was not consistently person‑centred.Some care plans had not been updated following changes in people’s needs, and some information in people’s care plans was contradictory. Some people had developed relationships with other people in the service, which they may not have capacity to understand the consequences. There were no care plans or risk assessments on how to support both people having this relationship. This meant staff did not always have the guidance they needed to support people in a way that upheld their preferences.

We reported this to the registered manager who took immediate steps to improve quality of care plans.

Activities were provided to people and people’s religious needs were met. A relative of a person told us, “She is Catholic. A lady comes from the church and collects them.” A person told us how staff developed a relationship with them and spent time with them. The person said, “They lady that does activities comes and plays chess with me.”

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.

Care records demonstrated people were supported to access external healthcare professionals when required, helping to ensure their needs were assessed and met. However, the information about changes in people’s care were not always transferred to care plans in a timely manner. We raised this with the registered manager who took immediate steps to ensure all care plans were up to date.

People were cared for by a dedicated and stable staff team, which supported continuity of care and enabled staff to understand people’s individual needs and preferences. We found that regardless of poor quality of care plans staff were knowledgeable of people’s needs.

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

Information was not always provided to people in a way that met their individual needs and supported their understanding. Whilst information was available for people able to communicate verbally, it was not consistently tailored to non- verbal people’s preferred communication styles, such as accessible formats, visual aids or objects of reference. This meant some people were not fully supported to understand important aspects of their care, daily routines or the choices available to them, limiting their ability to make informed decisions and exercise control.

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.

A complaints policy was in place, and information about how to raise concerns was available to people and their relatives. People and relatives told us they knew how to raise issues if they needed to and many felt able to speak to staff or the manager directly. One person’s relative told us, “I can’t think of any complaints. I have been listened to by management and they took action.” Another person said, “No complaints. No. From what I’ve seen they treat him well and look after him.”

Records showed that concerns were documented and responded to, and the manager described how they reviewed feedback to identify themes and inform improvements.

Regular meetings were being held for people living at the service and their relatives. These meetings provided opportunities to share updates about developments within the service, including menu, activities and environmental improvements.

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

People were supported to access healthcare services when required. Staff worked with a range of external professionals, including GPs, speech and language therapists and district nurses, to support people to attend appointments and meet their healthcare needs.

The building had been adapted including bathrooms to provide people with access to all facilities and outside space.

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.

The provider had policies in place to promote equality for people and to recognise people’s protected characteristics. Staff received training in equality and diversity and understood their responsibilities to ensure care and support promoted equality, reduced barriers or delays, and protected people’s rights.

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.

We saw some people had Do Not Attempt Resuscitation (DNAR) forms in place and Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment forms (ReSPECT) in their care plans. However, some people’s ReSPECT forms have not been reviewed for a very long period of time, therefore we were not reassured that ReSPECT forms reflected people’s current needs.

We raised this with the registered manager who took immediate steps to review all ReSPECT forms at least annually.