St David's 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 requires improvement.

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People did not always receive personalised care which met their needs. People told us they thought this was due to insufficient staff deployment. For example, some people said they could not get out of bed when they wanted. People told us they had to wait for care. Comments from relatives included, “[Person] loves the sunshine and being outside, but they are put to bed in the afternoon” and “It takes staff 20 minutes and 2 care workers to transfer [person] to their chair. So, [they] end up staying in bed. This is not what [they] want and it disrupts [their] routine leaving them awake at night.”

People told us that, whilst staff were kind and polite, they did not spend time talking with them. A person told us, “I think the emotional support is missing. Staff just do not have time for this kind of support.”

Risk assessments and care plans were usually updated promptly following changes in people’s needs. A nurse told us, “If something changes with a resident, we make sure risk assessments are updated, and all staff are told.”

People did not always experience joined-up care. Staff and people told us the provider had not always coordinated people’s admissions to ensure these were safe and well managed. Representatives of the provider told us they had robust systems for assessing new people and supporting safe transitions to the service. The provider did not always follow recommendations of professionals relating to equipment. Professionals told us this meant there was a risk people’s needs would not be met. The provider’s representatives told us they did not believe there was a lack of equipment and they were able to provide safe care.

People were supported by familiar staff who knew them well. People were able to access care and support both at the service and in the community. Relatives told us they were able to visit when they wanted. Most relatives felt involved in decisions about people’s care.

There were systems to ensure people had information about the service. However, some people and relatives told us they had not been provided with a welcome pack or copies of their care plans. We discussed this with the registered manager so they could ensure everyone had the information they needed.

Menus and information about activities were on display.

People’s communication needs were recorded in care plans. Staff supported people to express their needs. Staff used visual information to help communicate with people who needed this. For example, pictorial menus and show plates to help people make decisions about food options.

People did not always feel involved or listened to. Some people had spoken up about concerns but had not always receive a satisfactory response. A person told us, “We spoke with [managers] about issues with the call bell not being answered, but nothing much was said or done about it.” Some people attended ‘resident and relative’ meetings. People gave mixed feedback about these, with some people telling us they wanted more managerial presence at meetings to discuss the service. Whilst the provider had systems to ensure people and their relatives were consulted about care, some people did not feel they had been involved in developing care plans and assessments. We shared this feedback with the registered manager so they could ensure everyone felt involved.

The provider had a complaints procedure and other methods for feedback, including electronic surveys at reception. Although some people did not feel feedback and complaints were dealt with so that improvements could be made.

People experienced equity in access. Staff supported people to access other services when they needed. For example, escorting them on appointments and organising transport when they needed this. Staff supported people to access places of interest on days out.

People’s individual characteristics and diverse needs were respected and valued. There were procedures regarding equality and diversity. Staff undertook training to understand about these. The provider ensured people did not experience discrimination. The provider’s procedures were designed to overcome barriers to accessing services and to involve people in making decisions about their care and treatment where possible.

People were supported with care at the end of their lives. Staff worked closely with external professionals to help support and care for people.

Staff supported people to discuss their wishes for care at the end of their lives. They supported them and their families in a compassionate way. Staff completed training to understand about providing personalised end of life care.