Acer 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 outstanding. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 provider ensured people were at the centre of decisions about their care and treatment and worked in partnership with them to understand and respond to their individual needs and preferences. Records included information about preferred wake-up times, food preferences and other personal preferences, helping to ensure care was tailored to each individual.

People told us they were involved in decisions about their care and that staff respected their preferences. This included consideration of sensitive aspects of care, such as the gender of staff providing personal care. One person told us, “I was asked and said I didn’t want men for my personal care and they stick to that.” Another person said, “They accept that I don’t want male carers for my washing or toilet care.” These examples demonstrated that staff listened to people, respected their choices and provided care in line with their expressed wishes.

Care plans reflected people's individual needs and preferences, providing staff with guidance on how to support people in a way that was meaningful to them. Where people's needs changed, systems were in place to review and update care records to help ensure care remained relevant and responsive. Staff demonstrated an understanding of the people they supported and the importance of delivering care that reflected each person's circumstances, values and preferences.

The provider understood people's health and care needs and worked effectively with external healthcare professionals to ensure care was coordinated, responsive and consistent. Systems were in place to support joined-up working and the sharing of information, enabling people to experience continuity of care when their needs changed or when accessing other services.

Assessments and care records contained relevant information about people's needs and were shared appropriately with healthcare professionals and other agencies where required. This helped ensure people received consistent support and reduced the risk of information being lost when care was delivered by different teams or services. Staff demonstrated an understanding of people's individual needs and worked collaboratively to ensure care remained responsive and aligned with current requirements.

The service maintained positive working relationships with healthcare professionals and accessed specialist support when needed. There was a weekly GP ward round within the home, during which leaders proactively raised concerns, discussed changes in people's health and sought advice regarding treatment and ongoing care needs. This supported timely intervention and helped ensure people's health needs were reviewed and managed effectively.

The provider did not always ensure people received appropriate, accessible and up-to-date information in formats that met their individual needs. Whilst some information was available to support people to remain informed about life within the service, the environment did not consistently support people living with dementia to understand and navigate their surroundings independently.

The home was not dementia friendly in its design and signage. Corridors throughout the service appeared similar in décor and bedroom doors were largely indistinguishable, containing only a room number and small name plaque. There was a lack of clear directional signage to assist people in locating lounges, dining areas, lifts and bedroom locations. This meant people living with dementia may have experienced difficulty orientating themselves within the home and finding key areas independently, which could lead to confusion, anxiety and reduced independence.

However, there were some positive examples of information being shared with people and those important to them. People were provided with a weekly activities planner which enabled them to keep informed about upcoming events and opportunities within the home. Regular resident and relative meetings were also held, with discussions recorded and shared to ensure people were aware of issues affecting the service and any actions taken. Relatives told us they valued the regular electronic newsletter, which helped them remain informed about developments within the home.

The provider did not always ensure people were actively listened to, involved in decisions about their care, or informed about how their feedback had influenced improvements within the service. Although systems were in place to gather feedback, these were not always effective in demonstrating to people that their views were valued and acted upon.

The provider regularly sought feedback through surveys and held resident and relative meetings. However, people told us they did not always feel their opinions were heard or that their feedback resulted in meaningful change. While meetings provided opportunities for discussion, people described them as having limited value. One person told us, “We’ve been to a couple of the meetings but it’s not very exciting. They say about some laundry going missing and things like that.” This suggested people were not always engaged in discussions about matters that were important to them or the wider development of the service.

People generally told us they were involved in reviewing their care plans. However, several people were unable to describe the content of their care plans or how their views and preferences had been reflected within them. This meant the provider could not be assured people fully understood or had influence over the care and support documented on their behalf.

The provider ensured people had equitable access to the care, treatment and support they required to maintain their health and wellbeing. Staff worked effectively with healthcare professionals and external services to ensure people's needs were met in a timely way and that appropriate referrals were made when additional support was required. We found no evidence that people experienced barriers to accessing healthcare or other services because of their individual circumstances or needs.

People were supported to access a range of healthcare services, and staff sought professional advice when concerns were identified. There were positive examples of people receiving specialist support to improve their wellbeing. For example, one person told us they had experienced a decline in their mental health and had been supported by the service to access talking therapy. They described the support positively and told us it had, “Solved my issue.” This demonstrated the provider's commitment to ensuring people could access services which met both their physical and emotional wellbeing needs.

The provider also considered people's access to facilities within the home. Although the service was situated over three floors, people were supported to access outdoor spaces regardless of where they lived within the building. This helped to ensure people could benefit from spending time outside and participating in activities and experiences that were important to them.

The provider recognised that people had different needs, preferences and life experiences and took steps to ensure care and support were tailored accordingly. Staff demonstrated an understanding of the importance of delivering personalised care that promoted meaningful experiences and positive outcomes for people, including those who may be at greater risk of social isolation, reduced wellbeing or unequal experiences.

Activities and opportunities within the home were planned around the interests, preferences and abilities of the people living there. Staff took time to understand what was important to people and adapted activities to encourage participation and engagement. We saw examples of a varied activity programme that reflected people's individual interests, including gardening, arts and crafts, and visits to local services such as hairdressers. This helped people maintain hobbies, interests and routines that were meaningful to them.

People spoke positively about the opportunities available and the efforts staff made to keep them engaged and involved. One person told us, “[The activities coordinator] does something morning and afternoons, like games, doing a talk, crafts or someone coming in. That's part of why I want to stay on here.” This demonstrated that people valued the support they received and felt their interests and preferences were recognised.

The provider did not always ensure people were supported to plan for important life changes, including future healthcare decisions and end of life care. Whilst some arrangements were in place to support future planning, records did not consistently demonstrate that people's wishes, preferences and choices for the future had been fully explored and documented.

At the time of the inspection, no people were receiving end of life care. However, we found end of life care plans were not always in place to record people's preferences, values and wishes regarding their future care and support. This meant that, should a person's health deteriorate rapidly or unexpectedly, there was a risk that staff may not have access to sufficient information to ensure care was provided in accordance with the person's expressed wishes. As a result, people could not be assured their preferences for their final stages of life would always be known and respected.

There were some positive examples of future planning. People had a Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) form in place where appropriate. These documents recorded decisions relating to emergency care and treatment, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), and demonstrated that discussions had taken place with healthcare professionals regarding aspects of future care.