Hailsham 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

People’s care was not person-centred and did not always reflect their individual preferences. People and those important to them did not always feel listened to. People’s end of life care wishes was not always documented in sufficient detail. People were supported to access relevant health services and the provider made referrals to healthcare professionals in line with people’s individual support needs. People and their relatives felt the management were not always responsive to any concerns they might have. The service had processes in place to ensure all people were treated equally. End of life training was sought during the assessment process.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People and their relatives told us they were involved in their care planning and reviews. Comments included, “Our daughter was involved with his care plan, we are always made very welcome” and ““I have a yearly review of my care plan; I have poor mobility.” We received mixed feedback from relatives about whether care plans were followed, and some relatives did not feel listened too. A relative told us a person had an item that was important to them “that has gone missing several times. It is mentioned in their care plan as important. But staff have denied at times even knowing [person] has it.” Another relative told us that staff, “are always missing appointments for [person].” We observed good staff engagement with people during lunch on Beech, Orchard and Holly units. However, on Willow unit we saw that some people needed encouragement and support from staff to maximise food and fluid intake. Staff were not engaging with people and no extra support was offered.

Staff were familiar with people's individual routines and likes and dislikes. They knew people well and understood the importance of providing person centred care and offering people a choice in relation to how they chose to live. A staff member told us, “I am very happy here. I often receive cards and flowers from families who appreciate the care I give.” Staff said that people received person centred care. They understood the principles of what this meant. We asked staff how people and families were involved in creating their care plan. A staff member told us, " We try to involve them but if they can’t because of their health we involve their families."

Care plans were written in a person specific way but sometimes lacked depth and up-dates on care. There was a communication care plan for all people who lived in the home but there was lack of dementia communication aids to support people in making choices and decisions. Bedrooms were large and tastefully furnished. Families had personalised the rooms and these were looked after by the staff. However, bedroom doors in one specific unit were not all identifiable to the person so they could navigate to their room independently. Relatives told us that peoples belonging were not always looked after and people’s laundry was also problematic. There was no evidence of the added comforts such as mouth lip care, hand, or foot massage, music, or anything to evidence empathy for end-of-life care.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

People regularly had reviews of their care plan. People and their relatives had the opportunity to be involved in these reviews. We received feedback that some people and relatives found staff approachable and that they could raise anything without worrying. One person said, “I would talk to the staff if I was worried about anything.” However, people and their relatives did not always feel listened to. Some people told us they were able to raise any concerns or complaints with staff and they would be addressed. However, a person told us, “I don’t feel listened to, I have raised concerns with [member of the management team] two months ago and still not had a response.” Another person told us, “Sometimes I feel there is a language barrier, but not often.”

Staff told us if people or their relatives raised any concerns or provided feedback, these would be listened to and addressed. However, not all complaints were on file or had received a response. The manager told us “I have responded [to a complaint] but it is not in the folder.” It was not produced during the inspection process. On talking to the deputy manager regarding a family feedback comment about lack of response she acknowledged that it had not been logged or responded to. The provider immediately addressed the concerns identified and held meetings with the families and a senior staff member.

The provider used annual surveys, resident, and family meetings, one-to-one meeting with people, staff, and families to gather feedback. They told us they also used complaints, accident, and incidents to drive improvement. The provider had a complaints policy which included ways in which concerns could be raised, the process for dealing with any concerns and further steps that could be taken if complainants were unhappy with the resolution. However, feedback from some people, relatives and healthcare professionals evidenced that improvements were needed in how these were recorded and responded to, to ensure people felt listened to and able to raise complaints.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

People’s individual needs, such as culture, religion, physical and mobility needs or the things important to them were considered and catered for. A relative told us “We are welcomed. We can visit at any time and get offered tea and coffee.” There was a communication care plan for all people who lived in the home but there was lack of dementia communication aids to support people in making choices and decisions.

Staff understood people had a right to receive the care and support that met their individual needs. They confirmed that they had received training in equality and diversity. A staff member told us,” We make sure no-one is discriminated against. Sometimes situations with behaviours that may distress but they are not treated any differently. We care for all people, with many various differences.” Another staff member told us, “We have different religions here, but we do make contact with churches of different denominations.” One person had specifc cultural preference but not many staff seemed aware of this. Staff were alert to discrimination and inequality and told us that there were no barriers to people’s care, treatment, and support. There were no restrictions to visiting, families were welcome at any time.

The provider had policies and procedures that ensured they followed legal, equality and human rights requirements. Staff received training in equality and diversity awareness to ensure they understood the importance of protecting people from all types of discrimination. The provider had an equalities statement, which recognised their commitment as an employer and provider of services to promote the human rights and inclusion of people and staff who may have experienced discrimination due to their ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity or age.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.