Baylham 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 changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 57 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

During our inspection, we found inconsistency in the quality of people’s care plans. Some care plans did not provide essential details about people’s care to guide staff in caring for people. We found daily records of care and support provided were task focused and contained limited information about people’s well-being.At the time of our inspection, the provider was in the process of implementing a new care planning system.

Staff did not always anticipate people's needs or responded when they showed to be in distress or asking for help. During our visits, the inspection team had to ask staff to attend to people's needs.

Peoples’ needs for social interaction and stimulation were not being consistently met. Some people were at risk of social isolation and were spending all day in their rooms, others were spending time in communal areas but there was a lack of activities to provide stimulation or interest.We had mixed feedback from people’s relatives about whether their social needs were being met. One relative told us, “It is now more sitting around doing hand exercises and singing which is good but for the ones who can walk or go out in a wheelchair trips out in the fresh air were so much more rewarding. Management now say it is unlikely we will be having any trips soon.” However, a different relative said, “If [family member] wants to they can participate. If [family member] doesn’t they can put on films for them which they enjoy.”

A member of staff told us, “They have hardly any activities in the home and no activities for residents who are in bed or stay in their bedroom. They have done decorating biscuits but that was only 5 residents, and 4 residents used to go to coffee morning at a football stadium but that hasn't happened in a while.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Many relatives raised concerns about poor communication within the care home. One relative said, “It is early days with the new management, but communication is not so good. At a relative meeting yesterday, there were only 3 relatives attending partly because no email was sent out reminding people of the date.” Another relative told us, “Personally I have never been invited to anything like [a relatives meeting].”

The provider had a complaints policy which detailed how people could raise concerns if they were dissatisfied with the service they received and the process for dealing with their concerns. We saw a log had been kept of all complaints received along with details of any follow up actions taken.Following our inspection visit, the provider told us the complaints procedure and dates of relative’s meetings were available in the reception area at Baylham Care Centre.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

People who chose to stay in bed or who had a clinical reason to spend most of their time in their room, did not always have access to a call bell they could use to call for staff. We observed instances that people had to shout for staff to get their attention or wait until a staff member walked the corridor. There was no evidence that the provider had considered how all people in this situation would be protected from the risk of social isolation. We also observed, people living with dementia requiring emotional and physical support from staff but not able to access this.

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. We were not assured people had been provided with the opportunities to express their needs and wishes in planning for the end of life and in the event of death. Some people had DNACPR (Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation) forms in place to guide staff of their wishes, however, people’s care plans did not all contain information about their wishes for the future. There was a lack of end-of-life care plans in place. Where these were in place plans were brief in detail containing little information and did not express the voice of the person as to their needs and wishes.Following our inspection, the provider told us that end-of-life preferences was part of the ongoing review of people’s care plans.