Cliff Court 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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment, the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. 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. Throughout the inspection we observed staff offering people choices and supporting them to make decisions. Some people were less able to make choices and decisions due to their dementia. Staff explained when people were choosing what to wear they would show people items of clothing to help them make a choice. Staff told us some people would decline support that was important, for example, continence care or pressure area management. One staff member told us, “If they refuse then I will leave it and go back a few minutes later and try again. If they still say no I will ask another carer to try and this usually works.” We observed staff providing this type of support. We saw staff supported people to retain their independence. When people were walking they ensured they had the appropriate walking aids. At mealtimes staff provided support through prompting and encouraging people to eat their meals independently.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. People’s relatives told us their loved ones were referred to relevant health and social care professional when required. One relative told us how the staff supported their loved one with an ongoing health condition to ensure they received the appropriate care and treatment. The provider told us how they referred people for health and social care provision. Staff could contact the GP surgery at any time if they have any concerns or questions. This was done promptly and was responded to promptly. If other health professionals were required any referral was made through the GP, for example to the district nurse, speech and language therapist or mental health team. Once the referral had been accepted staff were able to liaise directly with the professional. Staff told us there was a good relationship with professionals and this was demonstrated when professionals visited the home. Healthcare professionals told us that referrals made to them were appropriate, they were done in a timely way and staff ensured any care or treatment prescribed by them was provided appropriately.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People’s relatives told us they were kept up to date about their loved one’s care, treatment and well-being. One relative told us they were regularly updated about their loved one and, “Any change needed is discussed prior to that being implemented.” Another relative said, “Every time we visit, staff update us about how mum is, in between visits they will always phone if she is unwell or there are any changes.” The provider and staff told us they ensured they always spoke with people’s relatives whenever they visited to update them about their loved ones. Staff provided information to people through general conversation throughout the day. There was a pictorial activity plan displayed on the wall. The menu for the day was clearly displayed on a blackboard. Pictorial menus were available and we saw these being used to help people make choices about what they wanted to eat.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. People’s relatives told us they were able to raise any concerns or complaints and felt comfortable to do so. One relative said, “I’m happy to bring up anything with them.” Another relative told us, “Staff are incredible, I can't fault them, they feedback on [name’s] week and ask if we have any concerns.” Relatives told us that concerns raised would be addressed. Relatives, and where they were able, people, were sent surveys throughout the year to feedback on the service. Feedback received was positive. The provider also monitored feedback posted online to ensure she was aware of any areas of concern. There was a complaints policy and complaints received were responded to appropriately and used to improve and develop the home.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Systems were in place to help ensure people were not prevented from receiving the care and support they needed due to their health or disability. Staff told us they worked with external professionals to help ensure people received the relevant health and social care support they required. This included home visits and attending hospital appointments. Although the home was an older building there was level access on the ground floor where people had freedom to walk throughout the day. There were stair lifts but people were required to manage a few stairs to access their bedrooms. This was done with the support of staff. Relatives and staff told us that when people were less able to manage the stairs then they would be supported to move to a ground floor room. One relative told us that a room move had enabled their loved one to remain independent, safe and confident.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Relatives told us they were, “Very happy” with the care their loved ones received. One relative said, “She’s very happy here, as happy as she would be anywhere.” They told us it was the whole staff team that made the home what it was and ensured people received the appropriate care. Relatives told us they were able to discuss any concerns about their loved one’s support and were reassured that they were listened and responded to. Staff were aware of the importance of ensuring people were not subject to inequality or discrimination due to their age or health needs. They supported people to receive the appropriate care and treatment by building effective relationships with health and social care professionals. Staff spoke with people in a way that supported their understanding. This included using short clear sentences and maintaining eye contact. There were examples of pictorial information, for example, menus.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. There were systems in place to ensure staff had information about how people would like to be supported at the end of their lives. People had ReSPECT forms in place (Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment). These included whether or not the person wished to be resuscitated in the event of a cardiac arrest. People’s families had been involved in these decisions. The provider told us, as far as possible, people would be cared for at Cliff Court until the end of their lives. However, if people’s needs could not be met then sensitive conversations would take place with the person and their families about the change in care needs. Staff told us external healthcare professionals supported them to look after people at the end of their lives.