John Masefield House - Care Home with Nursing Physical Disabilities

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

Improvements had been made and people received personalised care. The provider had invested in reviewing all people’s risks, allowing personalised planning of care. This allowed targeted personalised planning of care. The provider complied with the Accessible Information Standard by identifying, recording, flagging, sharing and meeting the information and communication needs of people with a disability or sensory loss. The provider had policies and processes in place which enabled them to continuously seek feedback from people and used the outcomes to tailor their care, support and treatment.

This service scored 75 (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 staff knew their needs well, had a good understanding of their individual needs and made sure those needs were met. They were also positive about the improvements in staffing levels which meant staff had more time to provide them with person centred care.

Staff told us people's needs and any changes were communicated amongst staff through daily handovers and update meetings. This ensured important information was acted upon where necessary and recorded to ensure monitoring of people's progress. Staff told us they had embraced the newly revised way of care planning which had resulted in improvement of recording as well as person centred care. Staff told us care records were simpler to follow and it was easier to find information quickly when providing care. The management team were positive about the new care plans which captured all people's needs and enabled risks to be identified and managed properly. The process had given staff opportunities to fully involve relatives, independent advocates as well as healthcare professionals. This meant people were receiving better care.

We saw people received care and support specific to their needs, preferences and routines. Care planning was focused on the person's whole life, including their goals, skills and abilities. We saw evidence people and their relatives were involved in the planning of care.

People were positive about receiving continued care based on their needs. They told us they had access to local continued care which meant they stayed in their local area. People's choices in relation to religion, activities and health were respected and staff ensured they fully supported them with accessing them.

The provider told us they understood the diverse health and care needs of people and the local communities. This allowed them to plan and provide care based on what people wanted and what was available locally.

Healthcare professionals who often worked with the service were positive about the improvements made which ensured continuity of care. There was a clear sense of partnership working which benefited people and improved their outcomes.

People’s records showed there were streamlined processes which allowed timely access to joined up care.

People had access to information in their preferred format which included pictorial and large print. We saw one person used an electronic device to effectively communicate with staff. Other people used pictorial aids and white boards.

The provider complied with the Accessible Information Standard by identifying, recording, flagging, sharing and meeting the information and communication needs of people with a disability or sensory loss.

People had communication needs assessments completed as part of the care planning process. For example, some care plans guided staff to observe facial expressions and show things instead of explaining.

People told us they knew how to give feedback about their experiences of care and support and could do so in a range of accessible ways, including how to raise any concerns or issues. We saw people had participated in meetings and surveys which had resulted in improvement in care. Independent advocates were effectively used to get people's feedback who would normally be left out.

The provider had systems in place to manage complaints. We saw the provider had not received any formal complaints since our last inspection; however, any minor issues had been addressed in line with the provider’s policy.

The provider’s quality assurance processes showed concerns were investigated, analysed and lessons were learnt.

People told us improvements had been made and they could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they need it. There was ample evidence to support this including healthcare professionals' information sharing following consultations.

The provider told us they ensured all people had access to care, support and treatment when they needed it. People's records showed they had timely access to care.

Healthcare professionals who often worked with the provider told us improvements had been made and people had better streamlined access to care when they needed it.

The provider had referral systems and equipment in place which enabled equal access to care for everyone. This included access to emergency unplanned care as well as arrangements for out of hours access. Availability of staff meant people could be escorted to appointments by staff that knew their needs well.

People told us they participated in surveys and meetings. Action plans from these feedback processes were used to plan people’s care the way they preferred it and ensured everyone had better outcomes.

Improvements had been made and staff told us they had clear guidance to target and support people who might otherwise be left out. Staff worked well with independent advocates to ensure everyone’s voice was heard. People had better experiences of activities and access to the community.

The provider had policies and processes in place which enabled them to continuously seek feedback from people and used the outcomes to tailor their care, support and treatment.

People told us they were supported to make decisions about their preferences for end-of-life care. This included funeral arrangements and preferences relating to their support at the end of their lives.

Staff told us they supported people to plan for important life changes. They ensured people’s preferences took account of their cultural and spiritual needs. The registered manager informed us no one was receiving end of life support at the time of our inspection. However, the team often worked closely with other professionals to ensure people had a dignified and pain free death.

Care plans included advance care planning where people discussed their future wishes. There were clear referral processes which staff used to ensure other professionals were involved in a timely manner.