South Cary House

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 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.

People had person-centred care plans in place which outlined their preferences, likes and dislikes. We observed that people’s rooms were personalised to their individual preferences. One person told us, “My room is a comfortable spot, it’s made better by having my own belongings and pictures.”

Staff understood what person-centred care was. Staff confirmed they had access to people’s care plans. One staff member described person-centred care as "what the individual wants." We observed staff providing people with choices and respecting their preferences. This meant staff understood what was important to people and provided care in line with their wishes.

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.

People were supported to maintain contact with their relatives and friends. People had phones in their rooms they could use. One person told us, “I can use the phone if I want to speak with my family.”

Managers made referrals to external professionals. One professional told us, "They raise the right questions at the right time." This meant people received timely support from relevant professionals to meet their needs.

Staff worked cohesively as a team, and shared information through daily handovers and on the electronic system. Relatives were updated of any changes, 1 relative told us, “They [staff] do keep us up to date.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Information about people’s communication needs was detailed in their care plans. Staff ensured that people were supported to express themselves. One person communicated with staff by writing information down. One person had prompt cards created to act as a reminder to use their call bell. This meant communication barriers were reduced, promoting independence and choice. There was a newsletter available to residents and relatives, providing regular updates, for example about changes and upcoming projects.

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.

There were systems in place to provide feedback. People and their relatives felt able to raise concerns. One person told us, “If I needed to make a complaint I could, I would speak with [deputy manager] or the manager.” One relative told us they could raise concerns with “Any of them really [managers].” No concerns were shared with us during this assessment.

The manager implemented regular meetings with residents and relatives and listened to their feedback. People at the service wanted to try new cuisines, so the chef worked with people to create a ‘flavours of the world’ menu. Additionally, the provider turned the summer house into an art gallery, which will display residents art. There was a ‘you said we did’ poster visible on the board in communal areas, outlining how requests from people were met. For example, increased frequency of art classes. This meant managers acted on feedback and aimed to improve outcomes for people.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People were supported to use lifts to access different parts of the home. People could make use of the garden space. Some people used mobility aids. People could see their GP when required. One person told us, “We get our jabs here, the doctors come here, I had a chest infection some weeks ago and the doctor came.”

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 were at the heart of the service. Some people preferred to eat their meals in their own rooms, and we observed that they received their meals in a timely manner.

People and their relatives spoke positively about things to do at the home. There were various activities planned each month. People could spend their time how they wanted. One person told us, “I’m a watcher rather than a player”. One relative told us, “She loves singing. There’s always something going on, its great she gets involved. She loves it.” Some people preferred activities on an individual basis rather than in a group. One staff member told us, “[person] likes to go out a lot, the other week we went into town.” This meant people experienced positive outcomes tailored to their individual needs.

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 end of life care plans in place. One person was receiving end of life care during our assessment. One relative told us “They [managers] asked me about end of life. What her wishes would be. Hers and our wishes.” One professional told us, "End of life care at the home is very good." This meant people received dignified support at the end of their life.