Roche Abbey 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 has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.
 

This service scored 50 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Care was not always person centred. There was not always evidence that where people’s preferences for care were recorded or that these were followed consistently.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. Where people required support and interventions to maintain their health and well-being, this was not always provided consistently. We found deficiencies in the support provided to people in relation to their skin integrity, continence and levels of activity and engagement on offer.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People’s communicative needs were recorded in their care plans, but we could not be assured that care plans were always followed. We observed care that was task-focused and not personalised. The provider had not always ensured that enough staff were deployed to provide a personalised approach to communication, engagement and the provision of information.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Although concerns and complaints could be made to the service, we were not assured that these were managed well. A relative told us they had raised concerns but did not feel their concerns were listened to or acted upon. Some staff reported they did not feel listened to when reporting concerns regarding staffing levels.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. We found evidence that medical professionals were contacted for advice and support when needed. However, the information provided was not always built into people’s care plans and records did not evidence that professional advice and guidance was always followed.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. Outcomes for people were not always clearly documented. For example, where a person was found to be losing weight records did not evidence that a plan was in place to manage or monitor this. During the inspection the provider started work to make improvements in this area.

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 could not be assured that plans for end-of-life care were sufficient as these lacked person-centred detail and it was unclear if people had been spoken to in relation to their wishes.