Island Court 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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. The manager ordered had signage to support people living with dementia, but we could not see this embedded in the service at this inspection. People had personal belongings in their bedrooms. The service adapted to ensure people were comfortable. For example, where a married couple lived at the home, the provider had ensured that the 2 people were in rooms next to each other.

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. The service worked closely with partners and health professionals. The Local Authority’s quality team provided positive feedback during this assessment, one quality advisor told us, “I feel that Island court offers quality care and now has a strong leadership and staff team in place. They are very responsive and keen to attend and contribute to Integrated Care Board (ICB) events and projects. They have recently taken part in a project led by ICB around ‘Greener homes’. Really worked hard with residents in developing the garden areas and jointly (with residents) creating a lovely space for all residents to enjoy. This work has been nominated for a Nursing Times Award, which is a real achievement. Both the deputy manager and Registered manager are attending the award ceremony in London”.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The accessible information standards were followed for people. Care plans detailed people's communication needs. Staff were able to describe how people communicated. Complaints processes were on display, as well as information around keeping safe and advocacy services. Staff had access to speaking up numbers and services available.

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 were able to provide regular feedback, ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. The management and staff listened to people. Any changes in peoples care involved them or where appropriate their advocates.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People were supported to medical appointments and follow up appointments. People received visits from health professionals. We saw evidence documented in peoples notes where a health concern was identified and staff were responsive and gained health care support. For example, we saw evidence where people needed foot care that a podiatrist was contacted and timescales of appointments were planned. The home had a weekly GP walk around, staff would raise any health concerns in the handover meetings to the nurses. This would be added to the priority for the GP walkaround. One relative told us, “The staff ensure [relative] see’s the doctor as soon as any concern arises, they are good at letting us know”. Staff understood how to source health professionals. Referrals were made and followed through by the home manager.

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. The new manager was active in identifying and exploring how the service could meet people’s needs. Staff could identify people who are at risk of isolation and how to prevent this from happening. The home involved local communities, this included having local singers come into the home and having themed days where all relatives and friends were invited.

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. End of life plans were developed in peoples care plans. These included conversations with people’s relatives and where appropriate advocates legally acting on people’s behalf.