Frome Care Village

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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 service 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 plans were generally person-centred and included details about their preferences, hobbies, and personal history.

Staff promoted choice and independence, and we observed respectful interactions during mealtimes and personal care. However, records did not consistently demonstrate that people and their relatives were involved in regular reviews of care plans and there was poor activity provision for some who remained in their rooms. A few people said they felt bored, particularly those who spent most of their time in bed, and relatives expressed concern about limited activities for people who did not join group sessions. While the Parsonage unit had engaging activities, such as craft sessions and animal visits, the Woodlands unit had external entertainers but was quieter, and records did not always show why people were nursed in bed or declined to get up. The provider had already identified this as an area for improvement and was working with staff to increase social activities for people who stayed in their rooms.

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.

Care provision met people’s basic needs, and staff were described as caring and helpful. Health and social care professionals were positive about the day-to-day care and staff skills.

Concerns were shared by health and social care professionals about the provider’s policy regarding arranging reviews and assessments through the provider’s centralised booking system, which did not always accommodate professionals’ availability. They told us this sometimes impacted on timely assessments.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People and relatives were given information about activities and changes through newsletters and verbal updates. However, some relatives said they received little information about their family member’s health status. One relative told us, “I never get any information whatsoever.” The registered manager said their team spoke to relatives and would improve the care review system to improve communication.

Care plans included people’s communication needs and identified where they needed additional support, particularly for those who were hard of hearing or preferred written formats.

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

Staff were observed listening to people and responding promptly to requests during our visits. People said they felt respected and could make choices about meals and routines. Surveys were completed quarterly, relatives told us that actions from feedback were not always shared with them.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People had access to healthcare professionals when needed, and staff supported hospital appointments.

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’s experiences varied. Some people and relatives praised the home as “Wonderful” and “Fantastic,” while others reported boredom, lack of activities, and feeling isolated. People who stayed in their rooms had fewer opportunities for engagement, and records showed limited evidence of personalised activities for these individuals. Staff recognised this and said they were working to improve stimulation for people who do not attend group activities.

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.

Advance care planning was inconsistent. While some people had Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) decisions recorded, end-of-life wishes were not always documented. Relatives confirmed they had not been asked about future plans or preferences. This means the service could not always demonstrate that people’s wishes will be respected at the end of life.

The registered manager was able to tell us about people’s personal wishes but acknowledged this gap and committed to speaking with people and relatives and reviewing all records. They also shared an example, of how staff enabled a person to reconnect with family through supported visits, and creating a homely environment for their final days.