Roberttown Care Home Limited

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 inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 50 (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 and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care records contained conflicting and inaccurate information and did not consistently capture people’s voices, preferences or assessed needs. This limited assurance that care was always planned and delivered in a person‑centred manner.

Activities took place but were generic and focused mostly on people who used communal areas, limiting meaningful choice for people who chose not to join in. At times, in the lounge areas, there were sounds playing from two different devices which meant people were unable to enjoy either one. People who remained in their bedrooms did not always have opportunities for meaningful engagement and said they would like more to do.

Some people felt staff were focused mostly on completing care tasks, rather than quality interaction. One person told us staff were kind and well-meaning but said, “It’s all rush rush”. Some people said they liked input from church services and animals visiting the home. The provider had obtained a large interactive screen which enabled people to play games such as bingo, although some staff were still waiting for training before it could be used to full advantage.

Staff knew people well, engaged in happy banter appropriately, and noticed when they did not feel well. One person was supported quickly when staff noticed they were ‘not themselves’ and took steps to refer their concerns to senior staff.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

People and their relatives provided mixed feedback about the extent to which care and support met their expectations and needs. One person said, “I am a bit isolated here as there is only one person that I can talk to. Its alright but I am not really happy. I would like to be at home.” Several people described limited opportunities for engagement. Although some relatives received updates when visiting the service, others reported little communication about their relative’s care, but said they could approach staff for updates if they wanted to.

The staff team was more consistent due to the reduction in agency staff, which meant people had continuity in the staff caring for them. This helped staff build relationships with people and understand their needs better.

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

People and relatives told us communication was satisfactory on the whole and they could ask staff for any information they needed. However, 1 person told us they were unable to read because they lost their glasses. They said, “I lost my reading glasses about 2 weeks ago and not got them back yet. I have an appointment with the optician to come in here to give me some new ones. It may seem trivial but it’s not to me.”

Menus, newsletters and activity information were made available in large print to support people. The manager told us they were considering the way information was provided and were improving the process for holding reviews with people and relatives to share and update information.

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.

Systems and processes were improving for people to be listened to and involved. People, staff and relatives said the new manager was more approachable and they felt able to raise any concerns, although some people were not yet assured any actions would be taken as a result. One relative said, “If I want to know anything, I can always ask the staff, but no one comes to tell me anything, I have to ask.” One person told us they had complained repeatedly about their care and support, but not enough action had been taken. We reviewed the complaints record which showed responses were made in writing. Not all people’s complaints were recorded. Some people had raised concerns to staff and managers which were not detailed as complaints on the provider’s records.

There was a ‘you said, we did’ board on display in reception, and this showed some areas which had been addressed following feedback from people and relatives.

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

The provider took steps to support equitable access; however, some people experienced limitations in being supported to spend time beyond their bedrooms. Whilst some people told us it was their choice to stay in their rooms, others said they felt isolated and this impacted the quality of their lives.

The provider had measures in place to support equity in access for people with differing needs.

The environment was largely accessible, and there was clear signage to support people to find their way round the home. Suitable equipment was available to meet people’s mobility and positioning needs.

Improvements had been made to ensure on-call support was available out of management hours. People had more consistent opportunities to access a range of healthcare professionals when they needed to.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

Gaps in care records meant staff did not always have the information they needed about people’s identity, cultural background and spiritual beliefs to support them in meaningful ways.

Where people experienced distressed behaviours, care plans did not always provide clear guidance, so staff did not consistently use effective support strategies. This meant experiences and outcomes were not equitable for everyone.

The manager told us they had reviewed and amended the staff rotas to ensure people were cared for with staff suitably skilled and experienced to meet their needs.

People were not fully supported for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about the future, including at the end of their life.

End of life care planning was not consistently embedded. Some people did not have sufficiently detailed or up‑to‑date plans, and information about people’s wishes, identity, and cultural or spiritual needs was not always clearly recorded. This limited staff guidance and consistency, meaning not everyone experienced equitable, personalised end of life care.

The manager told us they were working to improve care plans, and end of life care planning was being improved at the time of our assessment.