Victoria Mews

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

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.

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.

People’s care plans showed people and relatives were involved in care planning. They included people’s wishes, preferences, needs and what should be avoided for health reasons. Staff knew people’s individual needs well which demonstrated the relationships that had been developed. Staff advocated for people to ensure people received consistent care and treatment. One staff member told us, “Everyone is different, we do what they want - not what we want.” There were examples of staff supporting people to go to church, a person supported to revisit their old workplace and the cinema.

The provider used an electronic care planning system as well as staff regularly talking to residents to keep updated on people’s needs and wishes. A senior staff member told us people’s care plans evolved over time as staff learnt about people’s needs, choices and preferences.

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 had access to community health practitioners such as GP’s, dentists, community nurses and other professionals when needed. The service worked with commissioners of care, including health and social care professionals which ensured any gaps in care were identified and addressed. On the second day of the inspection, we observed a ‘ward round’ carried out with a community nurse and staff from the local authority. Staff were on hand to provide information and updates to the visiting professionals.

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

The provider offered information in a range of different formats in line with the AIS (Accessible Information Standard). For example, written material was available in easy read format, braille and large print should people require it. Staff understood people’s preferred method of communication, for example we observed how body language was used to communicate with a person.

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 relatives told us communication was good between themselves and the home. The registered manager took the time to listen to people. One person told us, “[Manager] always takes up what I say, I mentioned activities which has now improved.”

Regular residents’ meetings took place which relatives were invited to. This forum was used as an opportunity to hear ideas and make changes. An activity timetable was shared with people weekly. We observed relatives taking part in an activity during our inspection.

The registered manager displayed they genuinely cared and listened to people which helped to improve people’s lives and experiences.

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

Ancillary staff with non-caring duties told us they felt supported to raise any concerns. One member of the ancillary team told us, “All staff interact with people who live here. I might be a housekeeper but if I see a person who needs someone to talk/listen to them then I will stop. I can always catch up with my work. I cannot get that time back for them.”

People’s needs were assessed before they moved into the home and care plans detailed how people needed their care provided personalised to them. People were supported to access care and treatment they required in a timely way. People had call bells when they needed assistance, sensor mats and regular checks were in place. Emergency protocols were detailed and personalised. Staff confirmed they received the necessary guidance from managers and health and social care professionals. The provider had an on-call system in place to support staff to access managers out of hours.

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 had completed training in equality and diversity to help them understand and reduce inequalities that could affect people’s outcomes. Care plans reflected people’s cultural and religious needs as well as their care and support needs and demonstrated these had been met with reasonable adjustments. Staff shared examples of facilitating people to connect with their faith by facilitating regular visits to their place of worship.

The registered manager ensured people’s health and social care needs were considered and fully met. Relatives complimented the registered manager’s approach and told us, “If [the registered manager] can’t answer anything - they will find out.”

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.

At the time of inspection no one was receiving end-of-life care. The service demonstrated it had considered and planned to support people with future life changes. People were asked about their end of life wishes, where this was shared information was detailed and well documented in their care plan.

Staff had received training on end-of-life care and the registered manager’s approach was to ensure it was embedded in the delivery of care.

Systems to ensure do not attempt resuscitation (DNACPR) and Recommended Summary Plans for Emergency care and Treatment (ReSPECT) forms were in place. ReSPECT plans record a person’s preference for their clinical care in emergency situations when they are unable to make decisions or communicate their wishes.