Pittsmead Grange 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 service 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 through good organisation and delivery.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care.

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.

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 records and support plans were not always completed, person centred, and reflective of individual’s preferences, life histories and wishes. For example, a person’s biography failed to document their marital status and the further additional information section was not completed documenting their sexuality and nationality. Their well-being support plan had little information about the person and their family despite it being documented in other records that their family was very important to them. Another person’s biography contained very little information and did not document that they had children. However, when speaking with staff they informed us that the person had children and they visited. Although staff understood people’s needs and preferences, there was a risk that staff did not have all individuals’ information to ensure safe person-centred care was provided.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

Staff generally knew people, their needs and preferences well. However, care records and support plans were not always completed, person centred, and reflective of individual’s preferences and wishes. This meant there was no communal staff understanding of people’s health and care needs, how they wished to be supported or how this should be achieved in a person centred and consistent way.

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

People told us they were not always provided with information about the service in formats that met their needs. A person commented, “I was not and can honestly say that information about the home was lacking.”

The registered manager told us information can be provided to people in large print, and in different languages.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People told us residents’ meetings were held which they could attend. Comments included, “Yes, we do that all the time and tell them [staff] various things, and they do listen”, “I think they are every 3 months. I went to one in October 2025 and think there is 1 tomorrow. At the 1 I went to every area of the home was represented including the head chef and the activities coordinator”, and “They do happen, and I think there is 1 tomorrow.”

There was a complaints policy and procure in place and people told us they were aware of this. Comments included, “I have complained to individual staff, but they listen and will help if they can”, and “I did complain once about the food being cold and late. It was nothing major. The next meal I had, they [staff] made sure it was piping hot.” Complaints records showed that when complaints were raised these were investigated and responded to in line with the providers policy, and people were informed of the outcome.

People were supported to access the care, support and treatment they need when they needed it.

Staff and managers expressed a commitment to ensuring people did not face discrimination and had equal opportunities within and outside of the service. A staff member commented, “There is awareness of people’s protected characteristics, and we have training for this. I feel staff respect people’s differences.” Staff supported people to access healthcare appointments when needed. Activity sessions supported people’s mental and emotional well-being by engaging them to interact with others, for example, playing games and joining celebrations.

The provider did not always ensure they documented 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’s diverse needs and wishes were not always assessed and documented within their plans of care to ensure good outcomes, and this required improvement. The provider had identified shortfall in care plan personalisation and actions to address this were underway.

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 told us any wishes for people’s future treatment would be discussed with them and if people did not want to discuss this then this was respected. Staff referred to and worked with health care professionals when required to ensure people’s needs and wishes were respected.