St Anne's 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 service met people’s needs.At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained 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 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 told us they received their care the way they wanted, staff confirmed they supported people to live how they chose. A relative said, “The whole team are fabulous.” We observed staff supporting people with kindness and a caring approach. A member of staff said, “We know all of them and their backgrounds, we know them as people.” The manager told us “It’s their home and we are here to do all we can to help them live their lives. I am only here for the residents.” However, people’s care plans and assessments were not always written in a person-centred way. We raised this with the registered manager; they accepted the feedback and planned make improvements.

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. People told us they could access the care and support they required. This included seeing the GP or nurse. Relatives were confident in the staff to request medical support if needed. The providers electronic care planning system was used to record medical interventions. Records showed input from a variety of health and social care professionals. Information was shared through handovers and informally between staff. Health and social care professionals were positive about their interactions with the manager and staff at St Anne’s Court.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Information about how people communicated was recorded in people’s care plans. This information was highlighted if a person had specific communication requirements and shared with relevant health and social care professionals. People and their relatives told us information about their care was shared when needed. We were assured this service met the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The AIS is a law to make sure that people who have a disability, impairment or sensory loss receive information they can easily read or understand. Staff approach had adapted to meet people’s individual communication needs, for example, creating a pictorial copy of the activity schedule.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. People told us they felt involved in their care and support, their relatives agreed. Everyone told us they felt comfortable speaking with the staff, the manager or registered manager. People and their relatives knew how to make a formal complaint if they needed to, and were confident the manager and registered manager would take it seriously. A formal complaints procedure was in operation; however, the process did not signpost the complainant to the correct external organisation in relation to complaint management. We raised this with the manager and registered manager who responded by updating the process to reflect the correct information. Complaints and concerns had been managed within agreed timescales and to the complainant’s satisfaction.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.People told us they received care and support which had considered their individual needs. Staff received training in equality and diversity, they told us they supported people to live their lives in the best way possible. Policies and procedures underpinned all working practices, and this was supported by training. Staff were confident about the manager’s commitment to ensuring all learning was put into practice. The provider had new policies and procedures and within each policy there was a consideration of equity and accessibility.

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 told us they were treated fairly, and their rights were respected, their relatives agreed. We observed a respectful approach by staff during the inspection. Staff had access to various ways of raising concerns about approaches and treatment which discriminates. Staff training meant staff were reminded of their responsibilities. Policies and procedures underpinned working practices within the service, and this was supported by staff training.

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. People were given the opportunity to discuss their final wishes. Staff told us they would care and support people for the rest of their lives. There was a universal commitment within the service to be ‘a family.’ However, we identified care and support plans needed further development to ensure they completely incorporated people’s wishes and views. The registered manager worked to rectify this during the inspection.