Droitwich Mews 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.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated 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.

Staff 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. People’s care plans reflected their individual needs and provided guidance for staff to follow to ensure person centred care was delivered. Care plans were regularly reviewed and updated accordingly to reflect any changes. Staff knew the people they were caring for. Staff knew what people liked, their preferences and how best to meet these. One person told us, “Regular staff know me and what’s important to me.”

Staff understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. Effective systems were in place to ensure the different professionals involved in people’s care worked together so people received continuity in their care and treatment. This was reflected in people’s care plans. Visiting professionals we spoke with said, “They (staff) are very good here, work well with us, ring if need assistance from us, lovely care home.” We observed staff knew people well. We saw on noticeboards and in people’s rooms, activities on offer over a 7-day period taking place in various lounges in the home and there were details of upcoming outings. People had access to a minibus and told us they had opportunities to use this for trips out such as to garden centres, shopping centres and lunch at the golf club.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. We saw people’s communication needs had been assessed and accessible information was displayed around the home. Staff told us they would be further developing communication by introducing actual pictures. For example, of activities, pictures would be of the actual activity such as the singer or pianist.

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 registered manager told us they actively involve people living at the home. For example, some people were committee leaders and some chair resident’s meetings. One person told us, “Go to resident’s meetings always putting my two penneth in and it does change things especially with food, take it on board.” Another person said, “Attended resident’s meetings, able to raise anything I want, things do change.” However, they went on to say, “Asked for minutes time and time again but never had a copy.” We shared this with the registered manager who confirmed there were copies available and accessible to people but would ensure people who wanted a copy received them following any meetings. Other people told us they did not attend these meetings out of choice. There was a complaints policy in place. Staff recorded complaints and concerns received and documented actions taken in response to these. We discussed further developing these to ensure there were detailed action taken and their outcomes. One person said, “If I had any concerns would go to reception, no formal complaints, I’m very well looked after here.”

The home made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Managers and staff told us they would support people to access care, support and treatment when people needed it. This was evidenced in people’s care plans. The service worked in partnership with other professionals to meet people’s needs. Referrals were made to other external professionals when required, for example, to the falls team, District Nurse’s, ANP and GP.

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. Staff understood people had a right to be treated equally and fairly, to receive care and support which met their needs and was free from discrimination. Staff had access to the providers policies and completed statutory and mandatory training courses which safeguarded people and their protected characteristics. Protected characteristics are specific attributes safeguarded against discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. These include age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage, civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion and belief, sex and sexual orientation. Training records showed staff had completed training in equality, diversity and inclusion. The Equality, Diversity and Inclusion policy was detailed and highlighted a commitment to equality and human rights legislation.

Not all people had plans in place for their end-of-life care decisions. Some people had made choices these included funeral arrangements and people’s choices regarding resuscitation in the event emergency treatment. However, these were not always consistent through care plans we reviewed. We shared this with the registered manager who told us they would review these. We spoke to relatives who had experienced end of life care at Droitwich Mews Care Home, and they spoke highly about the compassionate care their family member received. They told us, “A staff member had gone over and above, the extra mile, and were so caring.”