St Martins Residential 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 changed to Requires Improvement.

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of the legal regulation in relation to person centred care.

This service scored 61 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices.

Care plans were not created for people at the earliest opportunity following their admission to the service. Not all people using the service had a plan of care detailing all of their care and support needs and how this was to be delivered by staff. Not all care plans accurately reflected people’s current care needs. Some people’s care plans contained generic information. This meant there was a risk that relevant information was not captured for use by staff to demonstrate appropriate care was being provided and delivered in line with people’s support needs.

Antecedent Behavioural and Consequence [ABC] were poorly completed and did not provide sufficient evidence of staff’s interventions and outcomes. ABC refers to records which help identify patterns, for example, triggers relating to how a person’s anxiety and distress presents, and what happens as a result,

People spoke positively about the care they received and implied staff were responsive to people’s needs. However, as highlighted previously, people’s experience did not always evidence personalised care that met their specific needs.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported continuity.

Staff worked with other services and involved people's relatives to provide care and support to people. People received care from the same staff so they experienced continuity of care as many members of staff had been employed at the service for some considerable time.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up to date information in formats that were tailored to people’s individual needs.

Though people’s communication needs were recorded, the Accessible Information Standard [AIS] was not fully implemented within the service. For example, although a written and pictorial activities programme was displayed, a full week’s activities was recorded which some people, particularly those living with dementia, may find it difficult to decipher and understand. The menu was not pictorial and although written on a board, the writing did not stand out and some people could find it difficult to interpret and follow.

Care plans had communication records in place to guide staff on how best to communicate with the person they supported.

Newsletters kept people using the service, relatives and staff informed about activities, events, general happenings at the service and other news, including an update by the board of trustees, by sharing stories and photographs.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

The registered manager told us they encouraged people who used the service, those acting on their behalf and staff to share feedback about the quality of the service provided, and what it was like to work at St Martins Residential Care Home. Quality assurance surveys were forwarded to individuals, inviting them to provide feedback and suggestions for improvement. These were last completed in 2024, with the majority of responses received being positive. Where areas for improvement were cited, there was an action plan completed detailing how these were to be addressed.

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

Discussions with people using the service and those acting on their behalf implied they had not experienced discrimination or inequality. Care records demonstrated people were able to access services, including a range of external healthcare services and professionals throughout the day, including out of normal hours and in an emergency. There was no evidence to suggest people experienced delays in healthcare provision.

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.

For people who were at risk of inequality in experience or outcomes, information about people’s individual care and support needs was recorded. However, as already highlighted, we identified some shortfalls with the services care planning arrangements. Where further improvements were required in this area, this was discussed with the registered manager who was receptive to our findings.

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.

However, where people were judged to be at the end of their life, there was a lack of detail recorded within their care plan relating to their decisions about their preferences for end-of-life care. For example, the information was generic and provided no specific information as to how they wished to be cared for so as to receive a comfortable, dignified and pain-free death.

Where appropriate, ‘Do Not Attempt Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation’ [DNACPR] orders were recorded. The service worked in partnership with other professionals, such as the local palliative care team to ensure people received appropriate end of life care.Staff employed at the service had completed end of life care training.