St Annes Residential 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 75 (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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans were person-centred and reflective of people’s support needs, wishes and preferences. Details included emotional support for people and how they would like to be supported in times of distress. Staff knew people well and treated them as individuals, providing care that was tailored to each person. A staff member said, “I will ask [people] if they have enjoyed their afternoon and whether there is anything they would like done differently or better.” Our observations confirmed that people’s wishes were being met, for example, we saw one person being supported to have a walk around the garden, something they enjoyed doing each day.

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.

Staff understood the importance of working closely with a range of healthcare professionals to ensure consistency of care. Professionals we spoke with were positive regarding the communication with staff and management. The registered manager told us that people were supported to appointment if needed. They said, “We support people with appointments, if family are not available staff can support and if that is not possible, I will attend myself.”There was a weekly round from the local GP surgery where any needs of changes could be discussed. However, if support was needed outside of this, staff contacted the surgery separately.

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

People’s communication needs were documented in their care plans. This included whether people needed information to be provided in a specific way and if so, how staff could ensure this happened. All information was available in a variety of formats should this be required, for example, large print or different languages. A relative told us, “If [person] needed anything different, I would speak with them, they are all very approachable.” We observed posters throughout the home displaying visual information such as how to raise concerns. There was a regular newsletter sent to people and their relatives to keep them up to date with what was happening within the home.

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.

People and their relatives were given regular opportunities to provide feedback and have their voices heard. Surveys were sent out every three months to gather feedback from people. These were analysed by the registered manager and any changes requested were considered and made as possible. People told us that they felt able to raise any concerns with staff and details of the complaints procedure were displayed throughout the home. One relative told us, “Since the manager change, communication has been much better. There is now a monthly newsletter keeping us informed. They are always very approachable for me to raise any concerns, it feels like a better relaxed atmosphere now.”

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

People were supported to access external services as they needed to. If for any reason a person could not access this in the community, provisions were made to enable the support into the home. For example, when people could not get to the dentist, plans were made for a dentist to attend the home. The activities co-ordinators worked closely with people to address any accessibility difficulties to ensure equal opportunities were provided for all.

Staff and leaders 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.

Staff treated people fairly and there were no concerns raised about discrimination. People were supported to uphold matters which were important to them, especially in relation to their faith. Regular religious services were held within the home for people to attend as they wished, these were also open to the community so experiences could be shared. Staff had completed equality and diversity training, and strongly believed in upholding people’s wishes to minimise exclusion.

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.

Where people had expressed wishes for their end-of-life care, these were documented in care plans. This included details such as who to contact and any specific requests, for example, religious needs to be met. People who had do not attempt resuscitation orders (DNACPR) had these clearly documented in their care records. The registered manager advised that some people had not expressed any wishes at present, but this would be revisited during each care plans review.