Rastrick Hall and Grange

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

At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained unchanged. We looked at the following quality statements: person-centred care, listening to and involving people and equity in experience and outcomes. We observed inconsistencies in the provision of person-centred care and found people’s care records did not always demonstrate a person-centred approach. Systems were not effective in ensuring people’s experience was equitable, particularly for those people being cared for in their bedrooms. However, systems and processes were in place to seek feedback from people, their relatives and staff.

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 received mixed feedback about whether people received personalised care, in line with their preferences. For example, people commented on a lack of attention to their personal care needs. People did not have easy access to their electronic care plans, although we were informed this could be provided if requested.

The management team were working with people and their families to review and update care plans to make sure they contained the detail staff needed to provide care that was centred around the person, and their needs and preferences. At the time of the assessment this was ongoing and not all care plans reflected a wholly person-centred approach. Staff understood how person-centred care benefited people and gave an example of how this approach had worked for a person. Although care plans were being updated, we noted that records made on the electronic care system lacked evidence of a person-centred approach being delivered to people.

We observed inconsistencies in the provision of person-centred care. Most staff appeared to know people well and met their needs. However, we saw people who had not been supported to meet their personal care needs such as shaving, hair care, or being provided with their spectacles.

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 received mixed feedback from people and their relatives about how the service engaged with them. For example, a relative told us they did not think their concerns were always responded to well and they had to keep bringing up the same issues. Another relative also told us they had not been invited to any meetings or had any satisfaction questionnaires, and a person who lived at the home said, “I’ve never complained, but I don’t know who I’d complain to.”

The manager was considering different ways to gain people’s feedback. They had introduced ‘relative drop-in sessions’ for them to come and discuss anything about their relative’s care. The manager was also developing an ‘open and honest board’ to be displayed in the reception areas. The board would provide anonymised information showing monthly updates on complaints, safeguarding incidents, falls, infections and pressure sores acquired at the home. Staff told us that people and their relatives had the right to complain about the quality of care; where complaints came from relatives they would be investigated and reviewed to ensure that the person’s needs came first.

Systems and processes were in place to seek feedback from people, their relatives and staff. For example, satisfaction surveys were used to gain their views on a six monthly basis. However, results and planned actions from previous surveys had not been made available. Advocacy services were used for people who needed this and dates for relative/resident meetings were being planned. A complaints policy and procedure were in place and information about how to make a complaint was on display. Complaints were being managed well and the manager was receptive to our feedback about making sure they gained feedback from the complainant to check their satisfaction with the outcome. Complaints were reviewed by senior managers and used to help in learning lessons about what had gone wrong and what could be improved.

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.

We saw several people being routinely cared for in their rooms. We did not see evidence of these people being encouraged or offered support to leave their rooms and join with activities. A person’s relative also told us their family member was not always supported to join activities, despite them raising this with the staff.

The manager said that as part of the review of people’s care plans, they were looking at the reasons behind some people spending their time either in bed or in their rooms. They said they would be working with staff to address this.

Systems were not effective in ensuring people’s experience was equitable. For example, some people had routinely been cared for in bed without any appropriate questioning of why this was the case. The manager had identified this as an issue and was taking steps to address this. However, access to an advocacy service was provided and encouraged for people who needed it.

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.