St Marys Chanterlands 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 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 consistently place people at the centre of decisions about their care and treatment. People and those important to them were not always involved when the service responded to changes in their needs.

Care plans were detailed and person-centred, but daily records were often task-focused and did not accurately reflect the care provided. Records also did not consistently show that staff followed care plans, specialist dietary guidance, repositioning requirements or safety instructions.

Feedback about involvement in care planning was mixed. Some relatives had contributed to reviews, while others said reviews had not taken place or they had not been involved when people’s needs changed. A family member said, “There hasn’t been any care plan review since the beginning and I have to say, [person’s] condition is definitely worse.” Another said, “We actually spoke with a social worker 2 weeks ago who is doing the care plan review.” The service needed a more consistent approach to delivering and evidencing person-centred care.

The provider understood people’s health and care needs and worked with other services to provide joined-up care, although records needed to improve in this area to evidence care being provided was in line with the professional’s recommendations. People had access to nursing care, GPs, paramedics, and other healthcare professionals when they needed additional support.

People and relatives described staff contacting healthcare professionals when someone became unwell or had an accident. Staff supported people with appointments and worked with healthcare professionals when people needed. Several relatives said people had moved to the new building smoothly and without significant distress helping to promote continuity of care.

The provider did not always provide appropriate, accurate, and up-to-date information in ways people and those important to them could understand and use.People and relatives told us communication with the service was inconsistent. Families often had to ask for information rather than receiving proactive updates about people’s care. Some relatives and professionals found it difficult to contact the service because telephone calls were not answered, or the staff available did not have the information they needed. A professional said, “We email through a lot of our non-urgent communication and have at times struggled with getting replies.”

As previously mentioned, the part of the service for people living with dementia did not consistently provide information in an accessible format. This increased the risk that people living with dementia could not understand information, orientate themselves, or make informed choices independently. More work was needed in this area to help ensure information provided was accessible to all.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. However more work was needed to ensure a consistent approach to involving people and their families.

People had opportunities to share feedback via surveys and feedback forms. Regular meetings also took place which included staff, residents and families. However, some relatives said they were unaware of meetings. A family member told us, “I would go to meetings if I knew about them.” When asked about being involved in care, a family member told said, “There hasn’t been any reviews that have included me.”

This feedback was shared with the registered manager so they may review this for future events. The registered manager was keen to improve people’s relationship with the service, involving people and acting when concerns were raised.

The provider made sure people could access the care, treatment, and support they needed. People received support from GPs, paramedics, nurses, social workers, and other healthcare professionals when required. People had access to equipment and adapted facilities, and the new building was accessible to relatives with mobility needs. People could also access the garden, communal spaces, activities, food, drinks, and support with meals.

The management team and staff 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. Care staff had undertaken equality and diversity training. Staff, people and family members did not identify any concerns about discrimination.

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.

Records included information about decisions not to attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation, lasting powers of attorney, and end of life wishes where people felt they were able to discuss this. Some relatives had discussed whether the service remained the right place for the person as their health deteriorated, and people’s representatives had contributed to decisions when individuals could not make these independently.