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 the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.
 

This service scored 68 (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.

A new electronic care planning system had been recently introduced and care plans had been transferred and updated. Although there remained some areas which required further work, care plans generally were detailed and contained information specific to the individual.
The manager had made changes to how care was organised to help ensure it met people’s preferences. Minutes from an initial staff meeting held by the manager stated, ‘Resident needs will always be the priority’ and ‘Residents are living in their own home and should choose when they get up and when they go to bed.’ Staff told us this approach had impacted positively on people’s experiences.

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.

External health care professionals working with the service were consistently complimentary about changes in the service. Comments included, “Over the past couple of months I have seen a vast improvement in the service” and “The home has a new manager who is very helpful and supportive.”

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

People’s communication needs were identified and recorded. For example, whether people needed hearing aids or reading glasses to support their understanding. People were provided with information about the service when they moved into Garsewednack.

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.

There were systems for gathering people’s views and ensuring they had opportunities to provide feedback. A member of the kitchen staff asked everyone for feedback following lunch to help ensure the food provided was meeting people’s preferences. Resident meetings were held and minutes of a recent one showed people had been asked about menus, call bell response times, staff approach, activities and then encouraged to raise any of their own concerns or ideas.
A relative had raised concerns with the manager. These had been listened to and action taken to address any areas for improvement. Relatives told us communication had improved in recent months. One commented, “Communication has greatly improved, weekly communications and emails.”

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

A GP visited the service weekly. Relatives told us staff recognised when people were unwell and sought advice. Comments included, “They always get the GP or District Nurse in to give my [relative] the once over.”

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.

We found there were still limited opportunities for people to take part in any exercise. One person had been a keen golfer, there was no evidence they had been supported to continue with this interest, even in a small way.
However, the service had worked with specialised mental health professionals to tailor support for people living with dementia. An external professional commented, “I have worked closely with staff and those under my care to ensure risk management is achieved.”

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.

There were no end of life care plans available for us to review. The manager told us these had yet to be transferred on to the new system. This meant staff and other professionals did not have access to information relating to people’s health and psychological needs as they approached the end of their lives.