Ingleby 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

The service was not always responsive and has been rated requires improvement. We found a breach of regulation relating to person-centred care and equity. Not everyone person received care that was person-centred and tailored to their individual needs. People had access to healthcare professionals, and staff worked in partnership to provide continuity in care provision. Communication needs had not been assessed and there was no evidence information was provided in easy read or pictorial format to support people’s involvement and understanding. New initiatives to seek peoples’ feedback and listen to their views had not been implemented even though resident and relatives’ meetings had not been well attended. Surveys had been completed however the results of these surveys could not be found. People’s experiences were not equitable, some people were supported to be active members of the community whilst other people with more complex needs had very limited stimulation, meaningful activity and engagement. Future planning, including end of life care plans were not in place and staff had not had appropriate training.

This service scored 46 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Not everyone received care that was person-centred. There was a lack of person-centred activities for people who stayed in their rooms and there were no sensory activities or reminiscence for people who lived with dementia.

We were told there were no residents and relatives meeting to seek people’s involvement as there was very limited attendance. However, no other initiatives had been introduced to engage people, and their relatives in the provision of person-centred care.

People’s care plans were not always person centred and lacked detail about how people wanted to receive individualised care and support. For example, one person sought staff attention continually and the care plan contained no detail on how to mitigate this or respond in a person-centred way. Person centred care plans were also lacking for people who required district nursing intervention for skin integrity needs and diabetes.

People said they had access to healthcare when needed.

Staff, and the manager discussed an initiative which was in place with the local college. Health and social care students attended a placement within the home. The students worked alongside the staff to support people with integration in the community.

Healthcare professionals commented on the positive partnership working they had with the staff at the home.

Processes were in place to ensure people received continuity of in relation to their health care needs. Referrals were made to other professionals.

There were mixed views in relation to the provision of information. One relative said, “No, I’ve not had any information” whilst another said, “They gave me a brochure which I was able to follow pretty well”. Some people said they had not seen their care plan or been involved in developing it. Some family members said they had provided information to the care home staff and had asked questions about the provision of care for their loved ones rather than information being provided by the care home staff.

The manager told us they were able to increase the font size of documents to make them easy to read, and they also had access to translation services for people whose first language was not English. They added, menus were printed in large print and placed on tables on the day. We did not see any examples of pictorial information or easy read documents, such as complaints procedures or being available for people.

There was limited evidence the Accessible Information Standard was being met. Communication plans were not in place to support staff to provide people with information in a way that was accessible and meaningful for them.

People said they felt listened to and acknowledged. However, there was mixed feedback about people’s involvement in their care. Surveys had been completed but there was no evidence feedback had been shared with people and their relatives.

The manager told us they were unable to find the outcome of people and staff surveys which were completed earlier in the year. They also said resident and relatives’ meetings had been held but were poorly attended. No other initiatives had been tried to seek feedback and involve people.

A complaints log was in place. This detailed that investigations had been completed, and except for one, a response had been sent to the complainant. Actions taken in response to complaints included a review of admission processes and increased checks on cleanliness. A meal survey had been completed with people and ‘You said, We did’ document was in place however this was not on display in the home. There was no evidence feedback had been sought by way of other surveys even though a provider visits from June 2024 stated they had been completed and were being analysed. One resident and relative meeting had been held in 2024 however it was not well attended. Other initiatives to seek feedback and involve people had not been implemented.

People told us they were able to access care, treatment and support.

People were able to remain with their preferred GP if the home was in the catchment area or there was a named GP practice who had links to the care home and completed regular ‘ward rounds.’

A healthcare professional said, “They are proactive in the management of patient care.”

Staff knew people well and had a good understanding of their needs, however this was not always reflected in care plans. People’s communication needs had not been assessed and care plans were lacking in person-centred detail.

People’s experiences and outcomes varied. Whilst some people were supported with accessing the community, going to social clubs and Church other people spent significant amounts of time alone in their rooms.

Staff told us, “The activities co-ordinator works Monday to Friday. If they are not in staff will pop some music on and have a dance.” The manager told us since the Covid-19 pandemic people were not engaging in social events and isolating in rooms had “become the norm.”

Whilst a new approach to meaningful engagement was discussed with the incoming regional manager this had not been implemented. Care plans did not include detail on supporting people who were in their rooms to socialise and have meaningful engagement and experiences. Activities and social one to one time were not provided for people who were in their rooms and if the activities co-ordinator was not available there was very limited engagement.

No one using the service was receiving end of life care however, some people had been prescribed anticipatory medicines. Some people had DNACPR’s in place and these were highlighted and up to date in care records. Care plans did not include specific detail in relation to future planning, including significant life events that were important to them or end of life care.

The senior home manager stated end of life care and future planning was a difficult subject to discuss with people and their relatives.

Future plans, and end of life care plans were not in place. Best practice training and support for staff to approach future planning with people and their relatives wasn’t provided.