The Old Vicarage

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

We were not assured that people were involved in their care planning, therefore people were unable to express their views and wishes. Activities were minimal, speaking with one person they said, “There is nothing going on”. The provider had not put systems in place to assess and monitor peoples needs effectively.

This service scored 32 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People told us they were not involved in their care planning and views from them were not obtained. One person said “No, there has been no discussion whatsoever. My (relatives) are coming later to the meeting. I can’t say I feel involved.

Staff had not always involved or listened to people, relatives, and professionals to ensure people's needs were met and their care planned accordingly. Care plans lacked person-centred details and did not guide staff how to support people safely.

We observed some staff speaking to people in a person-centred way however, there was a lack of engagement overall and activities were minimal.

People were not supported to participate in activities of interest to them. One person said “There is nothing going on”.

Staff supported people to maintain relationships with their families. Some people were supported to use technology in their rooms that was accessible to contact their relatives.

One external health professional said “The home seems cleaner and smells nicer now whereas before it was a little dirty and smelt of urine. The home was not as relaxed and welcoming with the previous manager and they seemed annoyed with us when we arrived to see patients, but I have not felt like this with the new manager”.

An activities co-ordinator had been employed 3 days a week, however it was not clear on the activities that were being offered.

People did not receive or have access to information in accessible formats to support understanding and provide choice and involvement in decision making. The service lacked suitable signage that had a negative impact on people living with Dementia. The large layout of the home also affected people who walked without purpose.

Staff were not consistent in completing keyworker meetings and actively involving people and relatives.

Systems were not put in place by the provider to review and monitor relatives and people’s views of their care provided.

People and relatives had not been provided with surveys or questionnaires to obtain their views about how their need were being met. People had not been offered to be involved in care plan reviews.

Staff were not consistent in completing keyworker meetings and actively involving people and relatives.

Systems were not put in place by the provider to review and monitor relatives and people’s views of their care provided.

One person experienced a potential head injury. Staff did not complete regular checks, checks did not give clear information on what they were monitoring for example a gap of 2-4 hours in between checks.

Medicines had not been administered by staff as prescribed, therefore putting people at increased risk of harm.

One external professional told us that Referrals come through when they notice concerns with patients in a timely manner.

The provider had failed to assess, monitor, and mitigate the risks to people health, safety and welfare.

An authorised DOLs was in place for one of the people living at the service. The DOLs had a condition. Relatives had not been invited to care review to discuss this condition as specified within the document.

Staff told us that staff meetings were not held often. One staff member said “we do not always have a chance to say anything, there is no agenda in place to write on before the meeting”.

The provider had failed to seek and/or act on feedback from people. No surveys had been completed for at least the last 12 months and meetings were sporadic. Relatives told us the provider did not act on their feedback.

People had ReSPECT forms in place, however people were not involved in the planning of their end of life care plans

One relative had lasting power of attorney, when we reviewed the persons file a copy of this document was unable to be found by staff, therefore staff were not assured that this was in place.

We found end of life care plans lacked person-centred details. There was no evidence to show that people had been supported to be involved in their plans.