Headingley Park 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.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to providing person centred care.

This service scored 54 (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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. We observed a mixture of interactions between staff and people. Meaning we could not be assured people always received person centred care. A relative said, “We think the care is good and [name] loves the staff. The family thinks [name] is well looked after. The staff have a good relationship with [name]. They are lovely. I can’t fault them.” We found peoples rooms to be lacking personalisation and people had limited personal effects in their rooms. Some people's room were tired and in need of redecoration. Following an audit from the local authority, the provider had put a refurbishment plan in place.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. Whilst we found staff had worked with professionals to meet people's needs and partners told us staff worked well with them; several relatives told us their loved ones did not always access care in a timely way. People had access to a hairdressers and a chiropodist.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People were provided with easy to read formats, such as how to make a complaint, safeguarding and falls prevention. People had detailed communication plans in place, which guided staff about how to effectively communicate with people.

Complaints were effectively recorded, investigated and actioned. People and relatives knew who to make a complaint to if they wished to do so. However, we received mixed feedback from people and relatives regarding if they felt listened to. A relative said, “I can’t rely on the care provided. For example, [name] can’t hear anything without their aids, I have asked they put these in, but it isn’t in when I come. I have also asked they move [name] into a comfy chair, but they are often left in their wheelchair.” Some relatives told us they were kept informed of incidents or any changes but had not been involved in any opportunities or meetings to give feedback about the care provided. A relatives notice board was in place and a Facebook group had been opened, to share key events about the service. People were provided with opportunities to give feedback about their care however surveys we reviewed did not reflect the feedback we reviewed during our assessment.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Records evidenced staff had contacted external healthcare professionals, including emergency services where required. However, we received mixed feedback from relatives about how staff monitored their loved one’s health and how quickly they contacted health services. A person said, “Staff do arrange for me to see a Dr if I need one.” Whilst a relative said, “I’ve had to contact the occupational therapist myself about the lack of availability of a wheelchair which denied [name] mobility. I’ve spoken to the [registered] manager about these issues, but the responses have all been poor.” District nurses and GP's visited the service regularly to monitor people's ongoing health concerns. Partners we spoke with told us the service had improved recently, and they felt staff listened to them and acted upon their advice.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. Whilst an activities board was in place, we found this did not reflect the activities available on the day of our assessment and the day prior. Meaning we could not be assured the activities programme was up to date or being followed. We also observed a lack of stimulation or meaningful activities taking place. Staff told us people did not have enough activities and people, and we received mixed feedback from people and relatives about the activities on offer. A staff member said, “It is where we fall short here, with the activities, there isn’t enough.” Whilst a person said, “I take part in activities as much as I can. Yesterday’s party and singing was okay, but they didn’t sing any Christmas songs.” And a relative said, “I don’t perceive many activities taking place. I wish there could be more activities with the residents, particularly to engage [name] in conversation.” We found some activities had recently taken place, such as a Christmas party and singers.

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. There was a lack of information in peoples care records regarding their wishes at the end of their life.

At the time of our assessment a person was receiving input from the GP to discuss if they required end of life care and support. Where required people had pre-emptive medication in place, to keep them comfortable at the end of their life.