Kirklands

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 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 64 (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 and their relatives were involved in their care planning where required. One relative told us, “When [person] came in, we did the care plan together so that’s all good.”

Staff told us about how they provided person-centred care, and we generally observed this to be the case. One staff member told us, “When I am supporting people with, for example personal care, I speak with them about their lives and backgrounds. I talk them through what I am doing at every step.” One relative told us, “[Person] is always clean and tidy and dressed how they like to be. [Person] has always been well turned out and still is. They are so well looked after.”

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.

Staff understood the importance of working closely with a range of other agencies including GP practices. They worked particularly closely with the district nursing team. One staff member told us, “[Person] was showing symptoms of [health condition] so I rang the district nurse straight away. They gave some advice which we followed, and their condition improved.”

One professional visiting the service told us, “Staff tell us if there are any issues and we work closely with them to find solutions.”

The service did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Information about how CCTV recorded audio was not readily available to people and those visiting the service.

Information about safeguarding and how to report safeguarding concerns was not always displayed in communal areas. For example, at the front entrance of the care home.

While staff supported people to make choices about their food and drink, photographs on menus did not always correspond with the foods listed.

People had access to newspapers and magazines.

Staff had received data protection training and understand data protection requirements.

The service did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

People were able to take part in surveys and feedback about their care. However, the service could not always evidence how they had acted on their feedback. For example, negative feedback from resident’s surveys about how to get help with making decisions and from relative’s surveys about raising complaints.

However, we saw evidence of the service responding to and acting on complaints and using the duty of candour. There was an up-to-date complaints policy in place.

The service did not always record what action they had taken following negative feedback from staff about people’s care. For example, about how they were supported to create care plans and how they could support people with their eating and drinking needs. However, the manager was able to tell us how they had spoken to staff and provided guidance for them to follow, and how they had deployed staff differently to ensure care staff had more time to spend with people during mealtimes.

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

The service had systems in place to ensure people had regular access to medical professionals. For example, specialist health partners visited the service regularly to review people’s health needs.

Reasonable adjustments had been made to ensure people could access the premises. For example, where people used a wheelchair to mobilise, there was a lift available to access all areas. Mobility aids and specialist equipment was made available to people where required.

The home had dementia friendly decorations and signage. Bedroom doors resembled front doors in various colours, and people’s names were displayed along with wall boxes containing personal items. Corridors had been designed to represent community establishments such as shops and the post office. There were sensory items available such as fidget blankets and soft toys.

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’s care, treatment and support promoted equality and upheld people’s rights, and the service sought to provide a person-centred service that acknowledged people’s differences.

Staff and managers expressed a commitment to ensuring people did not face discrimination and had equal opportunities within and outside the home.Staff had received equality and diversity training.

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 did not always include information about their advanced wishes or preferences.

The service worked closely with the community nursing team when people required end of life support.