The Devonshire Also known as 1- 3883899011

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.

Most care plans contained information on people’s likes, preferences and specific needs. Further work was required to make sure care plans contained details on how people liked their care to be delivered. Most people told us they hadn’t seen their care plan, but felt their care was meeting their needs. Relatives told us they were kept up to date with any changes. One relative told us, “I am on first name terms with the carers, they phone me up once a month to give me an update. The nurse gives me all the news and an update on [person’s] eating, drinking, and they always ask me if I have any questions.” Another relative told us, “[Staff] update me regularly and formally every 3 weeks and when I come in too.” This meant relatives were kept up to date with any changes to people’s needs.

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.

Staff and leaders received a comprehensive training programme on subjects such as learning disability, dementia and dysphagia which ensured they understood people’s diverse needs. Records showed the provider made referrals to a variety of health professionals, such as community mental health teams. This meant professional advice was used to form people’s care.

People were supported to attend external appointments where required.

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

The provider made documents available in alternative formats to ensure information was accessible to everyone. For example, the provider’s service user guide was written in multiple languages. Care planning documents were available in large print. One person had information recorded on an audio device in their native language, this meant they were able to access and understand the information given to them.

Staff completed GeneralDataProtectionRegulation (GDPR) training which was regularly updated.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

The provider held regular relative and resident meetings, however, relatives we spoke with told us they were not aware of the meetings. Comments included, “I have not been aware of any relatives’ meetings,” and “I think there used to be an occasional relatives’ meeting but not now, however I find the home is always accessible.” Meeting minutes showed when relative and resident meetings took place, very few people attended. This meant not all relatives had the opportunity to discuss ideas or concerns with the provider.

Relatives we spoke with told us they found it very difficult to discuss concerns with the registered manager as they were discouraged from visiting the registered manager’s office. Relatives told us when they had tried to speak with the registered manager to raise concerns, they had been told to email the registered manager and request a formal meeting. One relative told us, “We are told that we cannot see [registered manager] and that if we want to speak with [them], we have to write and ask for an appointment with [them].” This meant relatives did not always feel confident raising concerns. The provider had a complaints policy, complaints were investigated and outcomes recorded.

Relatives told us they found senior staff, such as clinical leads and registered nurses responsive and were confident in discussing concerns with them.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People who were able to leave their rooms were able to access a greater range of activities and received a higher level of social stimulation than those who received all their care in bed. This meant people who were unable to leave their rooms, did not receive the same opportunities as people who were able to mobilise.

The environment was not accessible to everyone. The home consisted of 7 different units, it was unclear where each unit was located due lack of signage around the home, there were no signs to tell you which unit you were entering. This meant people with a cognitive impairment may find it more difficult to move around the home due to becoming disorientated.

The provider had refurbished some rooms such as bathrooms and adapted them to meet people’s needs. Some bathrooms were fitted with a bath and a bath chair, enabling people to be safely transferred in and out of the bath.

During the inspection we observed staff speaking to people in their native language, this meant people were able to understand information given to them and communicate their needs effectively.

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.

Care planning processes considered a range of individual factors, including age, gender, religion, disability, and other protected characteristics. People were regularly supported by the same members of staff.

There were clear policies in place to promote equality and meet diverse needs. Staff received training in equality, diversity, and inclusion and this was also discussed in team meetings.

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.

People’s care plans contained information about their thoughts around the end of their life, including healthcare treatment and funeral arrangements. People’s wishes were respected if they chose not to discuss their end of life care. Some people had a “Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation” (DNACPR) in place. This meant people’s wishes and preferences were documented.