Goatacre Manor Care Centre

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 71 (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 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 and their relatives told us the care was individualised according to needs and preferences. One relative said staff would tempt their family member with all their favourite foods to get them to eat. If they wanted sandwiches, they would always be asked what filling they would like.

Staff knew people well, including their preferences and the support they required. This was demonstrated through discussions with us, and interactions with people. There were many natural conversations with people about their family, pets and places they had in common. We observed staff did not walk past a person without acknowledging them or stopping for a chat.

However, the support people needed was not always clearly documented in their care plans. For example, a person’s risk of choking was clearly identified on the handover sheet, but there was limited guidance in their care plan. Another care plan identified reassurance as an intervention, but there was no clarification as to what this meant in practice. Whilst staff knew people well, the lack of clarity increased the risk of inconsistency within care delivery.

People told us they could make choices about their daily lives, but personal preferences were not always documented in their care plans. This included for example, the time a person preferred to get up or go to bed, or how they liked to dress. Some lifestyle care plans identified people enjoyed watching television, but further detail such as the type of programmes they preferred were not stated. Managers told us they would devise a plan to review and amend all care plans to ensure they were all person centred throughout. On the second day of the inspection, this work was well underway.

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.

The service had access to an accessible minibus, which enabled people to go out regularly. This included to places of interest, shopping or for a coffee. People and staff told us a recent visit to a museum and a local garden centre had been enjoyed. Choices of destinations were determined by people, with more expected with the better weather.

Leaders told us they were actively developing links within the local community. This included local community groups such as the Veterans and the Women’s Institute. They said they were developing local people coming into the home for coffee or lunch, and to socialise with people.

Records demonstrated people had access to a range of community services to meet their health care needs. Staff told us good relationships had been developed, and they could call the GP for example, at any time for a visit or advice. A GP confirmed this and said “I do weekly ward rounds, and an interim acute visit if required. Staff have my direct email, and I would say we have pretty good communication.”

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

Care records demonstrated people’s communication needs were assessed during their initial assessment and again thereafter, if difficulties were experienced. Care plans showed the support a person required to enhance their communication. This included speaking clearly and making eye contact with the person. We observed staff following this guidance in a respectful manner.

Leaders told us there were a range of systems which could be implemented to enhance communication if needed. This included making sure hearing aids were clean and well maintained and electronic devices such as laptops were charged. They said some people used audio books and speaking clocks. Leaders showed us they had recently developed feedback forms about the service in braille.

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 and their relatives told us they could give feedback about the service easily. They said they were regularly asked if any improvements could be made and felt able to make suggestions. Leaders confirmed this and said there was a People’s Voice Group and a Dining Action Group. Both met regularly and suggestions had led to the development of the garden and new seating areas.

There was a suggestion box in the entrance hall for visitors to post their feedback. Visitors were able to press a range of satisfaction faces, when using the electronic system to sign in and out of the service. If an unhappy face was selected, an email would automatically be sent to the registered manager. The registered manager said they would then discuss the concerns and investigate them accordingly.

The provider had a complaint procedure, and a record of any concerns was maintained. Any concerns were fully investigated and used to improve the service.

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

Leaders told us the service strived to achieve equality and ensure people received the support they required. This included opportunities within the community, healthcare and equipment. One staff member confirmed this. They said having the minibus, which had disabled access was invaluable and did not discriminate against people who had accessibility needs. This was because those with ageing frailty and physical disability could use the transport alongside those more able.

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.

Leaders were knowledgeable about the local community and people’s needs which could be met effectively with the service. They said they strived to address inequalities and ensure each person received a quality service which improved their day to day lives. Leaders told us empowerment was important, and various events had been organised to promote different cultures. This was helping to break down certain barriers and minimised the risk of discrimination.

People were supported to access the services they needed and go into the community for pleasure. Leaders told us they were planning to integrate the service further into the community. To do this, they had researched different contacts and found various people who could help.

Staff had completed training in equality, diversity and inclusion to ensure they had an awareness of people’s individuality and their rights.

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.

Information in people’s care plans about end-of-life care was not personalised and did not reflect their individual preferences. This did not ensure cultural or religious requirements for example, would be fulfilled effectively. Leaders told us they would ensure discussions regarding end of care preferences would be revisited with people and their relatives. On the second day of our inspection, these discussions were underway and care plans were being updated.

Staff had received training in end-of-life care, and leaders told us the team worked alongside other professionals as needed. Staff told us they felt confident in providing care to people at the end of their lives. One relative told us, “The care they gave [person] and us was amazing. They were so kind, truly kind. Their approach was so caring, we couldn’t fault them in any way.” A health professional told us they felt staff provided people with appropriate end of life care.