Harcourt Gardens 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 always ensure people received consistently person-centred care. While care plans were detailed and included information about people’s preferences, routines and needs, these were not always followed in practice. For example, records showed discrepancies between care plans and delivery, including night-time checks continuing despite documented preferences to limit these. A person told us they were disturbed at night by staff knocking and waking them, which did not reflect their choices.

Some people told us staff understood their needs and provided appropriate support, demonstrating that person-centred care was often delivered with a person telling us they “love the activities,” and others engaging in a range of social opportunities available throughout the home. Communal areas were vibrant and well used, including the café and social spaces, which promoted interaction and a sense of community. A person told us they enjoyed spending time in the café area where they could “sit and chat and have a drink”.

However, inconsistencies in applying care plans and reflecting people’s preferences in practice meant care was not always tailored in line with individual wishes, particularly in relation to daily routines and restrictions.

The provider had recognised areas where practice required strengthening, particularly in ensuring care plans were consistently followed, and actions were in progress to improve this.

The provider understood the diverse needs of people using the service and ensured care was joined up across teams and services. Staff worked collaboratively within the home and with external professionals to support continuity of care. Visiting professionals told us communication was, “Very good, timely”, and “Staff take responsibility,” confirming effective partnership working.

People experienced coordinated care, supported by effective communication systems such as handovers and electronic care records. Professionals confirmed staff shared information appropriately and implemented guidance following clinical input.

Care records showed involvement from external professionals such as GPs and Speech and Language Therapist (SALT) services, with appropriate referrals made when needs changed.

These systems helped ensure people received coordinated care, particularly when their needs changed or they required additional support.

The provider supplied information in formats that supported people’s individual communication needs, in line with the Accessible Information Standard. Care plans and activity information were available in accessible formats, including pictorial activity schedules to support people living with dementia and those with communication difficulties. The provider had systems and policies in place to ensure information could be adapted to meet people’s needs, supporting understanding and engagement.

We observed information displayed throughout the home, including activity boards and notices that were clear and accessible. People were supported to understand aspects of their care and daily routines, and information was shared appropriately with families and professionals. These approaches supported people to access information in a way that was meaningful and relevant to them.

The provider did not always ensure people were consistently involved in their care or experienced meaningful engagement. While systems such as meetings and surveys were in place, and some people and relatives gave positive feedback about communication, this was not consistently reflected in people’s day-to-day experiences.

Feedback gathered during the inspection showed variability in how people experienced involvement and engagement. Some people described positive interactions and opportunities to take part in activities, however others reported limited engagement. A person told us they “just sit and sleep” and felt that “no one is interested,” indicating that opportunities for meaningful involvement were not always tailored to individual needs.

Although feedback mechanisms existed, there was limited evidence that these were consistently effective in improving peoples lived experience. The provider had identified opportunities to strengthen how feedback was recorded and used to drive improvement, but this was not yet fully embedded in practice.

The provider made sure people could access care, support and opportunities in a way that met their needs. People had access to a range of activities and facilities within the home, including communal areas and social events.

The environment was designed to support accessibility and independence. However, people gave us mixed feedback about support to access outdoor spaces, including balconies and garden areas. 1 person said, “It’s just not consistent [access to the outside] too much health and safety, poor weather, risk of falling, I can’t just go outside when I want to, aways an excuse.” Another person told us, “It’s lovely outside on the ground floor, especially when the weather is nice.”

The provider had recognised areas where support for accessing certain environments and activities could be further developed and was taking steps to improve this.

The provider understood people’s individual needs and aimed to provide inclusive care. Care plans included information about people’s backgrounds, preferences and requirements, supporting equitable care delivery.

Staff demonstrated awareness of people’s differing needs and adjusted care approaches accordingly. Activities and social opportunities were designed to be inclusive and accessible to people with varying needs.

The provider had identified areas where consistency of experience could be strengthened and was progressing actions to support improvement.

The provider did not always support people to plan effectively for future care needs.

We found that End of Life (EOL) care planning was inconsistent, with some care plans containing limited information about people’s wishes and preferences. In several cases, records indicated that discussions had not yet taken place or were incomplete.

This meant there was not always sufficient information available to guide care in the event of a sudden deterioration in health, reducing assurance that care would consistently reflect people’s preferences.

The provider had recognised this area as requiring improvement and had included this within governance action plans to review and strengthen EOL care planning across the service.