St Georges 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 as good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 61 (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 was not always ensuring people were at the centre of their care and treatment and that they responded to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

For example, during our inspection we found where people’s needs had changed, this had not always been identified so any changes were considered and updated in their care plan. This included where people’s mobility had changed, their cognition and their weight.

People’s care plans did include if they had any hobbies, interests and life histories. Care plans also confirmed if the person wore glasses or used a hearing aid. Feedback from 1 relative was that improvements were needed to staff supporting the person with their hearing aid. We raised this with the registered manager so they could review this feedback.

The provider was not always ensuring care was provided flexibility to support people when their individual needs changed. Although, the provider was planning to review how they met the needs of people and their staff team through some bespoke training.

For example, people were supported by a diverse team of staff. The regional manager confirmed they were planning to provide some bespoke training to staff around diversity and culture.

People’s health needs were reviewed daily through clinical meetings. However, we were not always assured all changes to people’s health needs were being identified so referrals were made when required.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The provider’s service user guide was provided to people when they joined the service. It provided information to people about their care, additional services available, and how to raise complaints or suggestions. People were provided with a printed copy of the current activity schedule for the service. We were told no one living at the service currently required other formats to provide information to them, such as large print or braille. However, these could be provided if required.

People’s communication care plans recorded information about their individual needs. This included the use of communication aids, and any preferences people had. Some people had a specific assessment which reviewed their communication needs. It recorded who the person gave consent to share their information with. It also recorded any tools the person used, and who the person would like to support them in decision making. However, not all people had these assessments. This meant we could not be assured the service had always explored if people were provided with information in the best way for them.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

We were not assured the service had effective systems in place to gather regular feedback from people, their relatives and any visitors. We were told resident and relative meetings had been trialled but had not been attended. Surveys had not recently been sent to people or their relatives to seek their feedback. Relative’s comments included, “I haven’t been asked for any feedback” and “No I haven't been to a meeting or had a survey.” However, some actions taken in response to feedback was displayed in the service.

The provider displayed information explaining how people could make a complaint. However, we found improvements were needed to how complaints were investigated, reviewed and monitored to ensure actions taken were effective, or any themes or areas of improvements were shared with staff, people or their relatives.

Relatives told us they could raise any concerns they had with the manager or staff. However, they were not always updated with what action had been taken because of them raising their concern.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service ensured people had moving and handling aids where needed to support their mobility needs. The layout of the service was mainly accessible for people who used equipment such as wheelchairs. However, communal bathrooms were used as storage areas for items such as moving and handling equipment. This meant they were not readily available for people to use when they needed it.

The service used a call bell system so people could request support when they needed it. Some people and relatives told us they didn’t feel there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. This meant they could wait a long time when they pressed their call bell. Comments included, “They are short of staff, they don’t have enough, they often don’t have two staff free to hoist me, I have waited for about an hour to be hoisted and toileted” and “The response time could be up to 30 minutes from when [person] pressed the call bell, longer at lunchtimes.” One health and social care professional told us there were improvements needed to having regular staff as there was a high use of agency staff.

Staff had access to additional support out of hours from the provider if required in an emergency and support was provided by an advanced nurse practitioner who visited the service twice a week.

Staff and leaders 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’s care plans guided staff on how to support them in accordance with their wishes and abilities. Staff respected people’s preferences. Reasonable adjustments had been made for some people. For example, people had been offered to move bedrooms where this would improve the experience of living in the home for them.

The service had recently employed an activities team. An activities co-ordinator arranged activities within the home. They told us they had spent time speaking with people to gather information about people’s life histories and what was important to them. This information had then been recorded in people’s care documentation.

People were able to visit a hairdresser within the service. The service had recently purchased equipment to assist people with having their hair washed.

The provider had an equality and diversity policy which covered the organisation’s approach towards discrimination. Staff had completed equality and diversity training.

We were told a training session was being planned to explore any cultural requirements of people using the service. This aimed to develop staff’s knowledge of how to meet people’s individual needs and preferences 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.

People had care plans that considered their end of life wishes. Although we found some improvements could be made to having information in people’s care plans where they had a specific belief or culture. People had important information to support staff such as a DNAR (do not attempt resuscitation). This was easily available to staff within the person’s care plan and clinical paperwork. The service had worked closely with visiting doctors and the GP surgery to ensure DNAR paperwork was completed and up to date.