Chertsey Parklands Manor 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 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.

People’s care plans reflected their physical, emotional and social needs. However, we found some people’s care plans contained little information about their personal histories such as family details, where they had lived and worked, and their personal interests. This information is valuable in enabling staff to engage with people more fully about their lives before they moved into the home, including their families, friends and interests.

The provider’s regional support manager told us they had noted this when they recently reviewed a sample of care plans and said they had put plans in place to improve the information recorded about people’s individual life histories.

Staff encouraged people to make decisions about their care and included their families in care planning and reviews. Relatives told us staff communicated effectively with them about their family members’ care and focused on improving outcomes. One relative said, “There is very open communication between the home and my family. They are always thinking of different ways they can help [family member] and improve her situation.”

There had been a high turnover of staff in the months preceding our inspection, which had affected the consistency of care people received. The provider had deployed agency staff when needed to cover vacancies on the permanent staff team. While this ensured safe staffing levels were maintained, people said their experience of care was affected because agency staff did not know them well, and the quality of agency staff was variable. One person told us, “There is just not the consistency while we have the agency staff. Our regular girls are lovely, agency [staff] are different because they don't know us. Some of them are really good, some of them less so.”

Relatives confirmed the number of vacancies on the permanent staff team had affected the consistency of care their family members received. One relative told us, “I used to know everyone, but now when you visit you don't see the same faces from day-to-day. There has been such a big turnover.”

We shared this feedback with the manager, who had already identified that the recruitment of permanent staff was an important priority for the service. The manager told us developing a stable staff team was one of the first areas they would focus on when they took up their post and said they planned a recruitment drive with the support of the provider's recruitment advisors.

People had access to information and advice that was accurate, up-to-date and provided in a way they could understand. People’s communication needs were assessed, recorded and reviewed to support their care in line with the Accessible Information Standard.

Information was tailored to people’s individual needs. This included making reasonable adjustments for people where necessary. The provider information return (PIR) set out how information could be made available in alternative formats, stating, ‘If required we use easy read guides, pictorial guides, large text size, Braille, translated text, cue cards in various languages, and interpreters can be arranged if required.’

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 had opportunities to express their views about their care and how the home was run. Relatives were able to give feedback and told us their suggestions were considered and acted on where possible. One relative said, “They have a relatives’ meeting each month, and residents’ forums. They also do food forums for the residents. I think they are helpful and, if we have concerns, they do try and resolve them.”

The provider had a complaints policy, which set out how any complaints would be managed. People who had made complaints in the past told us these had been investigated and resolved to their satisfaction. One relative said, “I have made a couple of complaints. They were not major ones, but for me they should not have happened. They were investigated and actioned straightaway, and we were kept in the loop throughout.”

People received care and support that was accessible and in line with best practice and legal requirements, including those on equality and human rights. This included making reasonable adjustments for disabled people, addressing communication barriers and having accessible premises.

People were supported to access services when they needed to, including outside daytime working hours and in an emergency. The premises and equipment were accessible and people were given support where necessary to ensure equal access to care and treatment.

Leaders were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage people in accessing care and support. The provider used feedback to improve access for people more likely to experience barriers or delays in accessing care.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care and support in response to this.

People’s care and support promoted equality, removed barriers and protected their rights. People’s experiences were listened to and acted on to improve care. The provider complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination and having regard to the needs of people with different protected characteristics.

People received care that was well-coordinated and were involved in planning their care and support. Relatives told us they were consulted about and involved in planning their family members’ care to ensure their views and wishes were respected. One relative said, “I feel we have input into [family member’s] care. At the beginning we talked about what [family member] likes and dislikes, and we are kept informed about any changes, so we are kept up to date.”

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they would have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People were supported to make informed choices about their care and plan their future care while they had the capacity to do so. This included involving people’s families and others who were important to them if they needed support to make decisions.

People’s decisions about their care were respected and delivered through personalised care plans which were shared with others when necessary. People were supported to express their wishes about cardiopulmonary resuscitation and were able to reverse their decision if they wished.