St Martha's

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 did not assess enough quality statements to rate this key question. At this assessment the service has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (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’s care and support was person-centred. Care was coordinated to maximise independence and planned to incorporate people’s choices and preferences. For example, regular people‑led trips were planned to support independence, reduce isolation and enhance personalised wellbeing.

The provider had a schedule of activities which people could choose to take part in. One person told us they could take part in activities, they also said, “I can say no, I have a choice…I'm going out tomorrow to do some shopping and to get some cash.”

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 choice was evidenced throughout the inspection. Documents demonstrated people had access to appropriate healthcare when required, and staff fully engaged with the process.

Staff had completed training and understood the Equalities Act. The registered manager told us how they collaborated with healthcare professionals to ensure care was joined up. They told us, “We look at the person as whole, and collaborate with GP’s, dentists and opticians, knowing where to signpost people and when reviews are due. We have a great relationship with the specialist dental team. Consistency is key, we have weekly visits from the GP and the Community Mental Health Teams care coordinator.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Where required people had access to communication aids such as easy read documents. The registered manager told us they also utilised technology and on occasions had used independent translators to ensure people had the information they needed.

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 living in the home were asked for their views in a variety of formats these included in daily conversations and regular meetings. The provider sent out surveys to people to gain their feedback. A relative told us, if they had a concern they would speak to the registered manager. Regular meetings took place with people to gain their feedback. Feedback was collated into an action plan with a clear audit trail to evidence when the action had been completed.

Complaints were reviewed and responded to in line with the providers complaints policy. Lessons learned were shared with staff which promoted collaboration and enabled individuals and teams to learn from each other and work together to improve processes and outcomes.

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

Staff understood the needs of people with a mental health condition and worked hard to ensure that barriers faced by people were removed or mitigated against. Each person had up-to-date information in place to share with ambulance and hospital staff as required. This could be shared with other professionals where appropriate and reduced potential barriers to care within the health and social care system.

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.

Staff treated people as individuals and adjusted care and support to meet individuals’ needs and preferences. Staff understood how the Equality Act (2010) applied to their role. The registered manager and staff gave us several examples of how people’s outcomes had been improved since living at the service.

People were 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. The registered manager told us, “We have open conversations with people who are able or their family if appropriate.” Where required people had end of live care plans in place which detailed their choices and preferences. Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) forms were discussed with people and put in place to ensure there was a personalised recommendation for their clinical care in emergency situations where they were unable to make decisions or express their wishes.