Rathgar 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 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. However, this was not always consistently reflected in care records.

The provider was committed to providing person-centred care, and this was evident in the interactions we observed between staff, people and their relatives during the assessment.

Staff told us they were passionate about delivering the best possible service for people living at Rathgar. For example, a staff member told us, “Everything we do is about giving them [people] the best possible care.”

People had personalised their rooms according to their preferences, and we observed rooms that reflected people’s interests.

Although the staff practice we observed was person-centred, work was required to ensure all records consistently reflected people’s individual needs, preferences and choices.

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.

The provider had a low turnover of staff, so people generally received care and support from a consistent group of staff, which enabled continuity. Although there was some agency usage, the manager told us they used regular agency staff. We saw evidence that agency staff were inducted to the service.

Staff worked closely with relevant health professionals, and records showed effective partnership working. We received positive feedback from a visiting professional who told us, “We are always welcomed into the home, staff support us while we are here and follow through on any feedback we give them.”

Staff had specific or enhanced training in relation to the people they supported and had a good understanding of people’s health needs. For example, staff had completed training to support people with dementia and diabetes.

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

Relatives told us they received regular updates from the home. For example, a relative told us, “We have always received regular updates on [relative’s] physical and mental well-being in person, on the phone and by email.”

The provider had a service user guide available for people moving into the home. The manager told us that if people required an alternative format of the service user guide or any other document, they would source the best option for the individual.

The provider had a range of easy-read materials, for example, in relation to safeguarding and CQC inspection. The manager was in the process of developing a CCTV easy-read guide at the time of the assessment. Where appropriate, information such as resident meeting notes was provided on yellow paper to help reduce visual strain and glare.

The provider had an iPad available, and the registered manager told us this could be used to translate speech for people if required.

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. However, the governance arrangements in relation to responding to complaints required improvement.

The provider held regular resident and relative meetings. A relative told us, “They keep us up to date and we have quarterly meetings.” Another relative told us, “They have relatives’ meetings online, and I read all the minutes. These are useful, and they do take on board what relatives are saying.”

The provider had policies and procedures in relation to feedback, and we found there were numerous compliments about the home, including from students who were placed at the home as part of their studies.

We reviewed the records in relation to complaints, and although it was evident the provider had taken the complaint seriously, acknowledged it, met with the family and provided a final outcome letter, we found the outcome letter required strengthening to ensure it provided details of the provider's investigation, findings, outcome and learning.

We shared feedback about the complaint response with the provider, and we were told by the registered manager before our assessment concluded that a new outcome letter had been sent to the family.

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

The provider had effective systems and processes in place to ensure people were able to access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Records we viewed showed people were supported to attend regular health appointments.

The provider had built relationships with other healthcare providers to improve access for people at the service.

The provider used a range of technology for the benefit of people, including assistive technology.

The provider had an on-call policy in place, with the registered manager or deputy manager available to provide support outside of normal working 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.

Leaders and staff recognised the barriers people living with a disability and other diagnoses may face.

Although not all areas outside of the home were accessible, the registered manager described works being considered to improve accessibility. Despite the restrictions, we did not find any impact on people living at Rathgar, as they also had access to a central courtyard.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they had enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

The provider had previously achieved Gold Standards Framework accreditation and continued to follow these principles, and the registered manager told us staff had also completed death, dying and bereavement training.

The provider had shared people’s decisions in relation to resuscitation, and staff were able to tell us whether people were for resuscitation or how they would access this information in an emergency.

People had RESPECT forms that had been completed with the GP. The manager told us they were aware these required further personalisation and that they planned to arrange time to review these again with the surgery.

The provider used a ‘my future wishes’ document to encourage people and their families to record their future wishes. A relative told us, “End-of-life wishes have been discussed with the home and the doctor.”

We found people had a death and dying care plan. The registered manager told us that, although these identified some people’s wishes after they had passed, they did require further information and that there were on-going discussion with people or relatives to further personalise people future planning records.