Seventrees 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 54 (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.

People’s care and support was not always person centred and people did not always live fulfilling lives. Although people’s care plans contained person-centred information and reflected their needs, interests and strengths, these were not always adhered to. For example, there were a lack of activities on and off site, meaning people did not always get opportunities to do the things they enjoyed and to develop their skills and independence. Staff did not always follow people’s preferred communication methods, as outlined in their care plans.

However, people and their relatives told us staff treated them as individuals, and they received person-centred care and support from a consistent staff team who were familiar with their needs, preferences and routines.

Staff demonstrated they understood people and prepared them when they knew things might cause distress. For example, when a circumstance arose where 1 person needed to change their usual routine, staff explained this to the person and made adjustments, to help alleviate the person’s anxiety.

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 and their relatives told us staff understood and worked well with other professionals to meet their needs. These included GP’s, nurses, and occupational therapists. Professionals who shared feedback spoke positively and praised staff for advocating on behalf of people.

Staff completed training specific to people’s needs and most staff had completed the Care Certificate. This meant they had been provided with the knowledge and skills to support people.

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

People did not always have information provided in a way which met their communication needs. Although staff knew people well and communicated with them, some people’s initial assessments, care plans and risk assessments identified they needed information to be provided in an easy-to-read format. However, staff told us, and we observed, there were limited use of this format. For example, staff told us they did not have access to communication tools to use with people, and the ‘service user’s guide’ was not in an easy-to-read format, meaning it was not accessible for all people. We raised this with the provider who said they would look at reformatting the guide.

There was a policy to support the best practice of accessible information, however the policy was not always applied effectively to meet people’s needs. For example, it stated the provider may provide documents such as care plans, consent forms and house rules, in an easy-to-read format, however these were not in place.

However, some people had access to easy read information to support them. For example, 1 person had an easy-to-read social story to support them with a visit to hospital.

The provider held a weekly ‘Chill and chat’ meeting where people were invited to attend and share their ideas about what activities they would like to do, what they have enjoyed and to choose the menu for the week ahead.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

People did not always have access to information about how to complain in a format which met their communication needs. For example, there was information about complaints included in the ‘Service user’s guide’. However, this information was not in an easy-to read format meaning it did not meet the communication needs of some people as stated in their care plans.

People and their relatives provided mixed feedback about the provider’s response to concerns, complaints and general engagement with them. They told us of some examples where the provider was responsive and acted, and others where they were less responsive.

However, the provider told us they had a plan to improve communication and would introduce relatives and residents’ surveys, and they told us they had held meetings with relatives and encouraged relatives to contact management at any time.

People had opportunities to provide feedback. For example, people met regularly with their key worker and were invited to the weekly ‘Chill and chat’ sessions.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Some relatives said they needed to take people to appointments, as there were not always enough staff and there was not a vehicle available for staff to transport people.

However, people were mostly supported to attend appointments, including mental health, GP, optician, dentist and occupational therapy appointments. Reasonable adjustments were made, such as ensuring people had mobility equipment available to them, in line with their care plans, to support and promote their independence.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

People and relatives told us a lack of activities both within the service and off site, effected people’s quality of life and, because the provider no longer had a vehicle of their own, people did not have the same opportunities to access the community they used to, and they felt people were becoming institutionalised. The provider told us they promoted people’s independence through the use of public transport, and they had requested additional 1:1 support for people, however this had not been provided by the local authority which, the provider told us, affected the frequency of activities available to people.

Some aspects of the environment were not always accessible to people. For example, the newly installed kitchen had some appliances kept at high level, such as the microwave, and it did not include low-level or adjustable height surfaces for wheelchair users.

The evacuation route from the rear of the premises was a gravel path. This was not suitable for all people with additional mobility needs, meaning they may not be able to evacuate without delay.

However, when we highlighted these to the provider, they moved the microwave to a lower surface to reduce risk and increase accessibility and told us they planned to install a solid pathway to improve the accessibility of the evacuation route.

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.

People were not always actively involved in making decisions about their future. For example, people did not have long-term hopes, aspirations or goals recorded which they would like to achieve. This meant people were not always supported to develop skills, increase independence, or work towards meaningful outcomes.

There was an end-of-life policy to in place. This stated all staff will have formal end-of-life training on a regular basis. However, records showed staff had not completed this training.

Some staff told us they did not always feel supported by the provider around end-of-life care.

However, people’s care plans held detailed information about their end-of-life wishes. For example, they included people’s choices about funeral location, music, and flowers.

A professional told us staff supported people with care and compassion and knew when to ask for support from services when people were at the end of their life.