St Peters Court

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 64 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Care plans described people’s needs and were written in a person-centred way, though there were some areas that would benefit from more detail. We could not always see from records how things were followed up with the relevant professionals. Staff completed daily notes for people, including specific documentation around fluid and nutrition intake. We observed positive interactions between staff.

Relatives told us they felt staff knew people well. Comments included, “From the Senior Nurse, the carers, to the management team they took time to get to know not just my [relative] but our family. We felt extremely supported as we all got used to our [relative] being in a full time nursing home.” We reviewed some recent resident surveys and found mixed feedback regarding people’s involvement in their care plan reviews.

It was not always clear if guidance and advice had been sought from some external health professionals such as the Local Authority. We identified a high number of incidents around falls and incidents between residents where there it was not clear what actions had been taken to mitigate the risk of incidents occurring and if the provider had notified the relevant agencies. However, the staff team were established and knew people well. The provider has since strengthened their processes around reporting and recording of accidents and incidents. We have not been able to assess the impact and sustainability of these changes during this assessment.

The provider did use agency staff on occasion but used agency staff that had supported people at St Peters Court previously. However, we did raise concerns around 1:1 support and ensuring appropriate cover of 1:1 support during staff breaks and unexpected leave/sickness.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People’s communication needs were recorded to ensure staff knew their preferred way of communicating. Staff had undertaken additional training in specialist areas such as dementia awareness training to help ensure they knew how to enhance communication with people.

The provider made use of technology to share regular communications and information such as emails with updates and sharing updates with staff via a communications app. People’s information was kept secure and confidential.

People and their relatives told us they felt able to raise any concerns and that they were aware of the complaint’s procedure. The provider carried out regular resident and relative’s meetings as well as resident surveys. We saw evidence of staff supporting people to complete surveys where appropriate to help ensure their voices were heard. Comments from relatives included, “I have been to a relatives’ meeting, they have them here regularly, and if you don’t attend, they let you know what has gone on,” and “We do get regular emails on resident activities at the home.”

The provider had processes in place for regular meetings with people and we saw evidence of this in meeting minutes. The provider had a comments book in the reception area and the complaints process was on the back wall behind the reception desk. There was also a suggestions box for people and their relatives and the provider had recently implemented a staff suggestions/concerns box in the staff room.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The provider had an activities team in place however; this was only on a Monday to Friday basis which meant there were not always meaningful activities during the weekend. The provider confirmed that they did hold some events at weekends and people also had access to activities such as a church service provided by the local community. We saw evidence of activities taking place during our onsite visit and one person enjoyed helping with wheeling the laundry trolley around the home to deliver clean clothes back to other people. The provider had also been renovating the outdoor space to develop a relaxing garden area that would provide a therapeutic space for people.

People were supported to attend healthcare appointments and the provider arranged for external healthcare professionals such as an optician, chiropodist and dentist to attend the home.

Care plans were accessible to staff and we saw evidence of referrals being made to external healthcare professionals such as GPs.

People had access to external health providers and healthcare professionals told us they had seen improvements in people’s health needs with continued support between themselves and the provider.

Staff respected people’s independence, choice and privacy when providing support with personal care.Staff were passionate in ensuring people’s needs were met. One staff member told us, “Everyone’s needs and wellbeing are always the main focus, and we really do go the extra mile to make sure residents are happy and comfortable.”

Staff had completed training in equality and diversity and staff understood people had a right to be treated fairly and equally.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, and we saw people had end of life care plans in place. Care plans we reviewed had evidence of PEACE plans in place (Proactive Elderly Advance Care) and references to people and their relatives to be actively involved in end of life care when approaching end of life. However, the care plans did not always have full details around their wishes and preferences for their end of life arrangements. This was despite many people having chronic or long-term health conditions. The provider has since confirmed that they have strengthened their documentation around end of life conversations to be more in depth. We have not been able to assess the impact and sustainability of these changes during this assessment.