St Cecilia

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 service met people’s needs.At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection 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 service 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 and support needs were assessed, reviewed, and updated when needed. A relative said, “Staff just anticipate what people need.” Records reflected the care people received and staff told us they had enough information to enable them to support people well. External professionals were positive about working with the service to meet people’s needs. A health and social care professional said, “We provided glowing feedback on the standard of St Cecilia’s plans in general and their absolute focus on 'how' to provide person centred care for my client, with detailed guidance on how to keep them engaged and how best to support their times of emotional distress.”We observed many interactions between people and staff where they demonstrated an awareness of the person’s needs.

The service 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 benefited from continuity in care, there was a stable, consistent staff team supporting them. Records showed treatment and support plans from various health and social care professionals were updated following appointments. The providers electronic care planning system meant staff were able to support people using the most up to date guidance. Staff told us the information they needed to ensure care was carried out in accordance with professional advice was of good quality. A health and social care professional said, “The registered manager and their team made sure that our own care and support plans were effectively weaved into their own assessment and care planning process.”

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

People and their relatives consistently told us staff communicated well. Staff told us various ways people preferred to communicate such as, speaking clearly and showing items and gestures to aid understanding. We were assured this service met the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The AIS is a law to make sure that people who have a disability, impairment or sensory loss receive information they can easily read or understand. The service adapted to meet people’s individual communication needs, and these were shared with professionals.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People and their relatives told us their voices were heard. We received overwhelming feedback about the ability of the registered manager and staff to support them with anything they needed. Relatives told us about how staff instinctively supported their loved ones with understanding the world in which they lived. The service had a complaints policy and procedure which was very well displayed in all communal areas. This had included who to speak with outside of the service to feedback on care standards such as local government organisations and the CQC.

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

People told us staff came to support them when they needed it or when they requested. Staff received training in equality and diversity, they told us they supported people to live well. Staff told us they would support people regardless of their background and explained diversity had enhanced the service. Policies and procedures underpinned all safe working practices, and this had been supported by training and ongoing competency monitoring. The registered manager said, “We recognise support for spiritual, religious, and philosophical beliefs is fundamental to person-centred care and crucial for maintaining the dignity and emotional wellbeing of our residents. We ensure that respect for these wishes is fully integrated into every stage of the resident journey.” Feedback we received from health and social care professionals was overwhelmingly positive.

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.

People were supported by staff who enabled them to flourish, the inclusive culture created by the registered manager was embedded within the service. Staff had access to various ways of raising concerns about treatment which discriminates, they told us the provider and registered manager would always take them seriously. Staff training, guidance and observations meant staff were reminded of their responsibilities. Policies, procedures and working practices within the service were undertaken in accordance with relevant legislation to ensure people and staff received fair treatment.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

People’s needs and preferences were detailed in their care and support plans. Staff knew people well and relatives were included in all decisions and preferences. However, specific needs and preferences for care at the end of their lives had not been recorded and people had not been offered opportunities to have these discussions. This meant the provider could not assured people had enough time to consider and document how they wished their care to be delivered in the future and towards the end of their lives. We discussed this with the registered manager, and they sought to rectify the omission during the inspection. We were fully assured by the actions taken.