Salt Hill Care Centre

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 71 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. However, the provider decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. People were not always consulted about activities of their choice. During the inspection, we observed an activity taking place but many of the people were not engaged and there had not been any consideration of alterations to the activity required for people who needed further support. For example, one person was partially blind and could not see the numbers in front of them as they were so small. This was raised to the registered manager who agreed to review the activities on offer and ensure they were more person centred.

People’s care plans included their likes and dislikes such as “[Person] likes to get up early and likes to have a shower”, “[Person] likes to watch the news and old-style South African movies” and “[Person’s] favourite foods are porridge and roast potatoes.” People told us they were happy living at the service, and staff were kind and treated them well. Staff told us how they supported people to make choices. This included choice of meals, how they liked to spend their time and when they wished to receive personal care.

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. Where people wished, they were supported to access their faith.

Care plans included information to guide staff on how to escalate concerns about people’s risks. Referrals to external services included details of any known risks, and the outcomes and recommendations from professionals were recorded. Professionals supporting people gave positive feedback about how the care home worked with external agencies to help ensure people’s needs were met.

The provider had systems in place to monitor and review people’s care needs and to escalate concerns to external services. The service worked closely with the local authority and other agencies to continuously improve the quality of care they delivered.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The provider ensured where people whose first language was not English, documentation was available in alternative languages, staff were available who could speak alternative languages or translation was available.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. The provider stated heads of department engage with people or others important to them to reflect their best interests. We received mixed feedback from people regarding their involvement in their care plans. One person told us, “Yes, involved with the care plan, risk assessment, all of it. I used to be a carer, did my NVQs, so I know what it’s all about”, whereas other people told us, “I wasn’t involved”, “Not really [involved in writing my care plan] but it’s early days and I need to have a chat with [the registered manager].” There were regular meetings for people who used the service where they could raise concerns or ideas on how to improve the service.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. We asked people if they had access to healthcare when required. One person told us, “Yes, no problem about that. They have the dentist if I need it…The hairdresser who comes here, I’ve known for 20 years.” Professionals told us the service contacted them as needed and listened to advice given.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. People told us they were treated fairly and with dignity and respect by staff, and relatives agreed. A staff member said, “I like working here. We work well as a team, we pull together." Staff told us they would provide care and support for people regardless of their background. Records showed people’s individuality and preferences were celebrated. Policies and procedures underpinned working practices within the service. People’s goals and intended outcomes were detailed and were known to staff.

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. People and their loved ones were involved in creating an end of life care plan in conjunction with staff in order to ensure people’s needs and wishes were met.