Flowerdown 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.

Staff understood how to provide person-centred care. For example, one staff member told us they knew 1 person liked to have a shower at a particular time of day so they always made sure this happened. We observed staff providing person-centred care and interaction with people. For example, a staff member gently suggested to 1 person they may be able to read their magazine better with their glasses on. People’s care plans provided person-centred information to staff, for example people’s preferred time to go to bed and get up.

The provider has a ‘resident of the day’ programme, where 1 person was focussed on for the day. This meant ensuring the person’s care plans and risk assessments were up to date, their room was deep cleaned and checked for any maintenance issues, and the activities coordinator asked if there were any specific activities they would like to do. One example of this was when a person received a specific takeaway meal they requested.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

There was a consistent staff team who knew people well. Agency staff were not used, with the provider’s own staff covering when required.

Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and completed a range of training to ensure they had the knowledge and skills required to support people. For example, in dementia care. There was a ‘whole home’ approach to training, meaning staff in all roles completed this to understand and support people’s needs.

Healthcare partners told us of their positive and effective relationships with the provider. One partner told us how the provider raised any healthcare issues people had with them, and staff kept them updated about people’s progress. This meant any changes in their condition were shared and acted on.

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

Staff understood people’s individual communication needs. Care plans detailed what support people needed to communicate effectively. For example, 1 person’s care plan specified how to structure questions to them to best facilitate communication. We observed staff using this method effectively with the person.

People could see the planned activities for the week as there was a prominent activities board on display. This had pictures and descriptions of the activities, along with the time of day they were taking place to aid people to know what was happening and when. There were also posters up inviting people to activities in the future, such as an upcoming Christmas lights switch on.

There was a ‘residents’ guide’ to the home, and regular newsletters which provided people and their relatives with useful information about the home.

Relatives told us communication with the service was good. For example, 1 relative told us, “They inform me of any changes” and another said, “the nursing staff have always rung me if [relative] is not well”.

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 and relatives told us they rarely had any complaints or concerns. When they did, they told us they were minor and always dealt with promptly by the registered manager. When complaints were received, the registered manager investigated these and shared learning with the staff to improve the service.

The registered manager wanted to hear people’s feedback, and they had provided different channels for people to share their thoughts. For example, there were resident and relatives’ meetings, and a dining comments book for people to share their thoughts about the food.

Feedback was welcomed and logged, with many suggestions actioned. There was a ‘You said, we did’ poster which informed people of the outcome of their feedback, for example a new pergola has been ordered for the garden following a suggestion.

The provider made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People could access all areas of the service. The whole home had been refurbished and had accessible facilities throughout. The garden had level surfaces meaning people could safely use it as they pleased, and there were raised beds for people to join in with gardening activities.

People had the equipment they needed, in line with their care plans. We saw staff moved people’s equipment, such as walking frames, away from them to make space and reduce the risk of trip hazards. However, this meant people did not have immediate access to them and could not move independently as they wished. We raised this with registered manager, on the second day of the inspection we saw people had their equipment within their reach, meaning they could move independently as they wished.

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’s care plans detailed their protected characteristics and reasonable adjustments.

For example, people’s care plans recorded if they preferred male or female carers to provide their personal care.

Staff completed training in equality and protected characteristics and there was a policy to guide them. This meant staff had the information, knowledge and skills to understand and protect people from discrimination.

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.

Relatives told us staff were kind and supportive when their loved ones had received end of life care and feedback received by the registered manager also reflected this. Staff had knowledge, skills and training to support people who were receiving end of life care. For example, there was an end-of-life care policy to guide staff, and a ‘whole home’ approach to ensure all staff received palliative care training.

There was a sensory trolley which staff used with people and their relatives to help create a calm, peaceful, relaxed environment.

People had clear support plans which were person centred, and detailed people’s decisions about their future. This meant staff had the information they needed to support people according to their wishes.

However, some staff told us they were not always able to spend enough time with people who were at the end of their life.