Saffrons 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 changed to Requires Improvement.

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

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

People’s care plans did not always include personal history or what was important to them and people had not always been involved in regularly reviewing their care. This meant that it was difficult to accurately understand people’s needs from the information available. However, staff interacted and treated people in a person-centred way when providing support, for example, asking people what they would like to eat or drink.

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.

People’s needs had been assessed prior to moving into the service to help inform their care. When people had been admitted to hospital their needs had been reassessed to ensure that they could be safely met upon returning to the home.

One relative told us, “They have a good understanding of my [name] condition. [Registered manager] has first-hand experience and knows how to support individuals with dementia. ”Staff understood people’s health needs and worked collaboratively with other professionals. We observed staff communicating with a visiting GP in relation to the management of health needs.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Visual information was on display, but it was not always easy for people to locate or regularly update. For example, the food menu in the lounge was difficult for people to read and had not been changed to reflect the meal choices available on the day.

Since 2016 all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The standard was introduced to make sure people are given information in a way they can understand. The standard applies to all people with a disability, impairment or sensory loss and in some circumstances to their carers.

People’s AIS needs were not always identified in care planning and preadmission paperwork, recorded or reviewed. However, staff understood how people communicated because they knew them.

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.

People knew who to raise concerns to and how to make a complaint. The registered manager was present in home and spent time talking to people. One person told us, “If I disliked something or felt unsafe, I would speak to the manager, I know who they are.”

One relative said, “[Registered manager] is easy to speak to. I have never had an issue trying to contact them. [Registered manager] is very nice.” Another told us “The staff always inform me if there are any changes regarding my [name] needs. If I have any concerns or questions, I am always answered with helpful and caring advice. There is regular 'family group' meetings to which we are always invited and are asked to air any concerns.”

Regular resident’s meetings were held and other opportunities for people to provide feedback to the service was provided, for example, the use of surveys. Actions and outcomes from meetings had been clearly documented. The provider had a complaints procedure and staff had received training in complaint handling.

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

People received support to attend medical appointments and to access health care services. Some people were able to do this independently, whilst others required staff assistance to arrange plans. Staff knew how to make referrals to specialist services including occupational therapy and mental health teams.

People and their relatives said there were no barriers to accessing care and treatment. The home had weekly GP or paramedic practitioner visits. One relative told us, “Saffrons are very good at organising other services to visit such as the chiropodist and hairdresser, they are always on time and never cancel.”

Adaptations had been made to accommodate individuals, for example, for people with reduced mobility there was a lift in place to access the first and second floor of the home. This minimised the use of stairs and reduced the risk of potential falls.

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.

Staff respected and supported people’s lifestyle choices, for example, veganism .However, these were not always clearly recorded or met in practice. The dietary needs of people with specific health conditions such as diverticulitis and diabetes were not always well catered for.

Staff had completed equality and diversity training. Policies were in place and in-line with current legislation. Staff were aware of how to promote people’s human rights and prevent discrimination.

People were not always 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 lacked information about planning for the future. People’s views on end-of-life care and involvement in discussing their wishes and preferences had not been documented. This had the potential to impact decision making in the later stages of life.

People had ReSPECT forms. ReSPECT stands for Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment and ensures their personal wishes in relation to medical treatment are followed. People also had a DNACPR (Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation) decision, also known as a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) order, which were accessible to all staff and health professionals should a situation arise.

Staff had completed end of life awareness training and knew how to treat people with dignity in dying and death. Medicines for this stage had been prescribed for those with advancing health conditions but were not actively in use at the time of inspection.