St Mary's

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 assessed 1 quality statement in the responsive key question and found evidence of poor practice. The score for this area has been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good. There was a lack of robust ways to gather feedback to drive improvement from the services. The provider completed surveys for people who had just moved into the service. However, general feedback surveys were issued each month, but none had been returned. There had been no review to identify why surveys were not returned to take action to develop alternative ways of gathering feedback. The registered manager told us ‘resident/ relative’ meetings had just started. However, the most recently planned meeting has not taken place as the registered manager told us ‘the day had gotten away’ and no relatives turned up. There was no information on display to show when the next meeting was and advertise this to people and their relatives. We have made a recommendation about how the provider ensures people’s views are sought and acted upon.

This service scored 64 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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 told us they did not have resident meetings or complete regular surveys. People were unsure of their involvement in their care plans.

Staff told us they understood how to respect people’s diverse needs. However, there were inconsistencies in what staff told us about people's religious beliefs and their understanding of how best to support these. For example, one member of staff said that a person was Christian and previously attended church however this person was not supported to access religious instruction. Another member of staff told us there was nobody in the service with religious beliefs. This meant staff were not always directed to understand the importance of supporting people’s religious and cultural needs. Staff told us how they supported people's beliefs such as ensuring vegetarian options were available.

Care plans included people’s personal beliefs. However, it wasn’t clear that staff always followed this aspect of people’s support needs. There was a lack of robust ways to gather feedback to drive improvement from the service.

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.