Chestnut Court 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.

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 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People received person-centred care. Care plans were based around the needs of individuals, and staff had a good understanding of how to meet the needs of individuals. They were written respectfully and gave a sense of who the person was and a history of the lives they had lived.

People were encouraged by the provider to make their new surrounding to be as much like home as possible. A family member told us, “They told my [relative] to bring as much of her own bedroom furniture as they liked when they moved in and the handyman even put up the mirror for [relative].”

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. People were referred to relevant health and social care professionals when the need arose. The GP service worked closely with the home and responded swiftly to concerns regarding people living in the service. Other professionals including tissue viability nurses (TVN’s) who regularly visited people in the service if staff had concerns over the condition of people’s skin condition. The service also worked closely with the community palliative care team to support people at the end of their lives.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Each person had information in their rooms about the services they were offered whilst living in the home as well as about their responsibilities and their right to complain if they wished to do so.

The registered manager told us at the time of our visit there was no one living in the service who did not speak English as their first language. However, when required they said they were able to produce information in other languages to support understanding.

We saw information throughout the service in both picture and written format aimed at informing people about life in the service. This included information about forthcoming events and activities that were happening both inside the service and in the community.

The provider made efforts to get feedback, particularly from families but recognised that this was not always easy to get them to respond. Although feedback received was very positive, numbers of those participating were generally as low as 12% in the most recent survey. We discussed this with the registered manager during our visit, and they agreed they needed to find ways of increasing participation in surveys. Despite the low numbers we saw that over 90% of people and families were happy with things like the home environment, the food in the service and the staff. The provider had drawn up an action plan as a result of the feedback they received and had actioned all the points people and families had raised.

People had access to healthcare professionals and other services. They also had some support to access the community. For example, on the day of inspection we noted a staff member supporting a person to visit a local shop. We also observed people were able to participate in activities in the home. We saw some people playing skittles and others participating in a game of bingo. There were posters on the wall advertising a summer fete at the home in the near future.

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.

People’s care plans highlighted outcomes about their care that were important to them. Outcomes for people focussed on delivering safe care which maintained their human rights and gave them as much autonomy as possible.

Families were able to contribute to outcomes identified in people’s care plan. Those we spoke to; told us of the ease they felt in talking to the registered manager and staff about their thoughts and ideas concerning their relative’s care.

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. Care plans detailed people’s end of life wishes and, where appropriate, palliative care needs. Do not attempt resuscitation (DNAR) documentation was in place for people as appropriate.

A palliative nurse who specialises in the support of people at the end of their lives told us about how staff seek support when they need it. They told us, “Staff are able to identify people coming towards the end of their life and they are able to plan their care for this in advance”.