Drovers 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 inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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.

People did not always receive care that was fully personalised or based on an accurate understanding of their needs. As detailed elsewhere in this report, risks were not always identified, andcare plans did not consistently contain the person-centred information required to guide staff in delivering safe and responsive care. Important details about people’s preferences, routines and support needs were sometimes missing, which meant staff did not always have the information they needed to provide care in a way that reflected each person’s individuality. This meant people were at risk of receiving care that did not reflect their needs, preferences or current risks.

People or their representatives were not routinely involved inreviewing their care plans, and opportunities to ensure records reflected people’s wishes were missed. This meant that some risks which could have been mitigated had not been, and people were not consistently supported to influence decisions about their care.

Interactions between staff and people were warm and positive, and people told us they felt happy living at Drovers House. However, there remained a shortfall in ensuring that records aligned with the care people received. Staff did not always work proactively with people to respond to changes in their needs, and documentation did not reliably reflect the personalised support staff d described providing. Theseissues meant that, despite caring and committed staff, the service was not consistently delivering fully person‑centred care in practice.

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.

Systems were in place to promote the continuity of care. People benefited from receiving care from a consistent and long-standing staff team. The provider contracted additional staff to work across the group when needed, and this team helped cover absences in the staff team at each of the provider’s homes. Permanent staff worked regularly within the same household which gave them opportunity to get to know people well. One staff member told us, “I know people well and they know me well. It’s how they behave and react to things. Because they know me so well, they feel comfortable talking to me about things.”

The provider had considered local healthcare needs. Drovers House were commissioned to provide care to some people under the ‘Discharge to Assess (D2A) Scheme.’ This is when people are fit to be discharged from hospital but need further monitoring and support before making decisions about their future care.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People did not consistently receive accurate or accessible information to support their day‑to‑day experience in the home. Although there were colourful, user‑friendly signage and information displayed throughout the environment, essential daily information was not reliably maintained. For example, picture menusin some of the dining areas were inaccurate on the first day of our inspection. We informed the registered manager, but on the second day the menus remained incorrect. This created a risk of confusion for people, particularly those who relied on visual prompts to understand meal choices.

People or their representatives, were not consistently involved in what was written in their care plans, meaning they did not always have oversight of or input into information recorded about their needs and preferences. In addition, minutes of residents' meetingswere not routinely shared with people, limiting their ability to stay informed about discussions and decisions affecting the home.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

The provider created an environment where people felt able to share their views, ideas and concerns. Systems were in place to gather feedback from people and their relatives, and these were used to understand their experiences of the service.

People told us they felt comfortable raising issues, and staff were confident in following the complaints process, which was supported by a clear policy.

Regular meetings were held with people and their representatives, giving them opportunities to discuss the running of the home and contribute their views. The registered manager was visible and spent time around the home listening to people,chatting with them and offering support.

Following our feedback about improving how information was shared, the provider told us they would consult with people about their preferred methods of communicationand how they wished to be involved and informed in decisions about the home.

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

People had access to the services, facilities and equipment they needed to support their health, wellbeing and independence. The home was located next door to the GP practice,which meant people could receive timely medical support. A range of visiting healthcare professionals, includingnurses and therapists, attended the home regularly. People were also supported to attend appointments with opticians, dentistsand the hairdresser,ensuring their day‑to‑day health and personal care needs were met.

The environment was designed to promote independence and accessibility. The purpose built layout, including a lift, accessible communal areas, adapted bathrooms and well‑maintained gardens, enabled people with different mobility needs to move around safely. The home’s village style environmentsupported social interaction and encouraged people to engage in everyday community life.

People had opportunities to access the wider community. A minibus shared across the provider group enabled outings and activities, and adapted taxis were arranged when needed so people could attend events, appointments or leisure activities of their choosing. Staff also made referrals to wheelchair servicesto ensure people had the right equipment to maintain their mobility and independence.

These arrangements demonstrated the provider’s commitment to ensuring people experienced fair and equitable access to healthcare, community opportunities and the physical environment.

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 experienced care that promoted inclusion and positive outcomes, regardless of their needs or diagnosis. The provider invested in dementia workshops to help people, their relatives and the wider community improve their understanding of dementia. This supported people to feel valued and ensured they had the same opportunities for learning and connection as those outside the home. The provider’s director of quality and compliance told us, “It is really important to us that people living in the home receive the same opportunities as those in the wider community.”

Staff were supported through the provider's 'Peace of Mind' project, which enabled them to seek specialist advice when people experienced distress or changes in their dementia related needs. This helped staff respond in a personalised way and promoted a greater sense of wellbeing for people.

The provider also invested in a dedicated musician who visited the home at least weekly. The impact of music sessions was monitored to understand how they contributed to people’s mood, engagement and quality of life. During our inspection, we observed a session where many people were singing, dancing and actively participating. Staff told us these sessions had led to noticeable improvements in people’s confidence and emotional wellbeing.

These initiatives demonstrated the provider’s commitment to ensuring people living with dementia, experienced access to meaningful opportunities, specialist support and more positive outcomes.

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.

Where people had chosen to share their end of life wishes this was clearly documented. When people neared the end of their life, staff worked in partnership with other health and social care professionals to make sure the person's needs were met with dignity and respect. This included pain management and emotional support. The registered manager explained discussing people's future wishes and future goals was integral to the initial, and on going assessment process.

Care plans contained information about people’s religious, cultural or personal wishes for their end-of-life care. This information ensured people spent their final days as they wished to.

Staff continued to respect people’s dignity following their death, by carrying out a guard of honour as they left the building. The registered manager enabled staff to attend people’s funerals if requested. The provider had systems in place to provide staff with support, if needed, following the death of a person who lived at the home.