Garsewednack Residential 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 provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question good. At this assessment, the rating has changed to requires improvement.

This meant people needs were not always met.

This service scored 54 (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.

Some people’s care records lacked information about their choices, views, likes, and dislikes, and were not always written in a person-centred way.

We received mixed feedback from people about whether staff knew them well. One person told us, “Not really, they don’t address you by your name”.

Some people’s rooms were personalised with items of their choice.

A relative, when asked about areas for improvement, told us, “Home’s décor. Maybe I can also put some effort into my relative’s room and put some pictures up—it looks a bit bare so something to brighten his room”.

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.

During the assessment, the registered manager was asked about people’s needs. They did not always know the diverse health and care needs of people using the service. We observed the registered manager asking another member of staff, who knew most people's needs.

People benefited from weekly contact with a GP. The registered manager and staff told us they could contact the GP for advice and support, and non-urgent matters were discussed during the weekly contact. We saw evidence of this communication in people’s records.

The provider could supply information in formats that were tailored to individuals needs. However, people were not involved in their care plans and did not have information provided about their care and treatment.

We saw people had communication care plans in place, to provide staff with guidance on how best to communicate with people.

The registered manager told us they were fully aware of the Accessible Information Standard and could provide information in different formats if needed. Since 2016, all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard. The Accessible Information Standard tells organisations what they have to do to help ensure people with a disability or sensory loss, and in some circumstances, their carers, get information in a way they can understand it. It also says that people should get the support they need in relation to communication.

One relative told us, “There is always nice conversation between him and staff”.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

Although relatives were given regular opportunities to provide feedback through surveys, the registered manager told us people using the service had not been offered the same opportunity. We discussed this with the registered manager, who acknowledged staff could support people to complete surveys and gather their views.

Staff gave mixed feedback about raising concerns with the management team and whether action would be taken.

Relatives told us they felt able to raise concerns with the service. Comments included, “I had no reason to raise any complaints, I speak frequently with manager,” “Staff would always call me and let me know,” and “If we have any concerns in the future, as I said the deputy manager would be my first person”.

The provider did not always make sure that people had access to care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Although the entrance to the premises was accessible and a stair lift was available, one person who required a hoist to transfer, lived on the top floor. Due to the layout of the stairs and stair lift, this person would not have been able to safely access the ground floor and communal areas, limiting their mobility and choice.

The provider ensured people could access medical professionals when needed.

Relatives confirmed people received care, support, and treatment in a timely manner. Comments included, “Professionals do come to see him, GP once a week, chiropodist and haircuts are regular,” and “They see GP, other people are chiropodist and hair, staff organise everything”.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience in inequality in experience or outcomes.

The provider had an Equality and Diversity policy in place, and the training matrix showed staff had completed equality and diversity training.

We observed many relatives and friends visiting people. The registered manager told us there were no restrictions on visiting. The registered manager and provider told us that if discrimination occurred within the service towards staff, or people, they would seek support from professionals to ensure appropriate action was taken

We saw a programme of regular activities. One staff member told us, “I feel they have enough to do, and activities are good here. We do karaoke and bingo, other stuff before tea and the residents love the karaoke with (Staff member’s name) they do get involved”. We observed people taking part in activities on both days of our visit.

One relative told us, “They respect my time when I come, very kindly always offer refreshments and they usually stop and have a chat about usual things”.

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.

People’s care records did not always include details about what was important to them at that stage of life, such as specific wishes relating to funeral arrangements, people’s decisions on who they would want present and what matters to them at this stage of their life.

The provider’s training matrix showed that some staff had received palliative care training.