St James' Park 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 service 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 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 service 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. Care plans were not always written in a person-centred way, we brought this to the attention of the registered manger who took immediate action to review all care plans as they were transferred onto a new electronic system. We were told staff would receive further training and support to ensure care plans were written in a respectful person-centred way. We observed care and support that was caring, friendly, responsive, and supportive. Staff spoke about providing person centred care based on what was important to the person. One staff said, “We provide person centred care depending on their individual needs and wishes. Like for personal care, [person] has their own routine, while [person] doesn't have specific routine to follow. For food, residents have their own preferences and some residents like attending the activities while others prefer to stay in their rooms.” Another staff member said, “We spend time with each resident communicating and discussing their wishes, likes and dislikes then we develop a care plan based on these needs and preferences.”

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. Staff understood the importance of working closely with a range of other agencies. We saw this included access to doctors, district nurses, chiropodists, dentist and speech and language therapy.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Staff understood people’s communication methods and styles. The provider was following the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). Information was available in a variety of formats and where English was not someone’s first language, alternative language translations were available. The registered manager told us, “Two of our residents when we developed their care plans and presented to them for input, found it difficult to read the new typing format of the care plans. We immediately acted and worked around this. For [person] we printed in large format, and they were able to read the care plan. For [another person], we did similar, and we also purchased a magnifying device. They are happily able to read their care plan and is using the magnifying device for other purposes as well.”

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. People told us staff knew them really well and they were able to raise any concerns they had and were listened to. There was a range of activities available for people based on things they liked to do. People were positive about the activities on offer. People told us they were involved in decisions about their care and support.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The home was accessible for those with mobility difficulties and bedrooms allowed access for equipment that people may need. Staff accessed healthcare support when people needed it. Relatives told us, “My [loved one] sees a doctor whenever they need to.”

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. Staff and managers expressed a commitment to ensuring people did not face discrimination and had equal opportunities within the home.

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 discussed our findings with the registered manager who told us they planned to host events that would support better conversations with people to make decisions and discuss their wishes for end of life support. However, staff had been trained to support people well at the end of their life and we reviewed positive feedback staff had received from families thanking them for the good care their loved one had received at the end of their life.