Cheriton 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

We assessed 2 quality statements in the responsive key question and found areas of concern. The scores for these areas have been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was requires improvement. Based on the findings at this assessment our rating for the key question remains requires improvement. Person centred care was not consistently provided and whilst systems were in place to promote equality and diversity there was limited access to the community which meant for some people equity in experience and outcomes was not promoted.

This service scored 54 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People shared examples where person centred care was not routinely provided in that they could not access the community, the garden and that they felt isolated within the service.

Staff were able to tell us about people's medical conditions and family histories. Staff spoke fondly about how they supported people with their chosen activity. Staff demonstrated they had a good understanding of person centred care. However, we found this not was not routinely demonstrated in staff interactions with people.

People’s preferences were recorded in care plans. However, we found these were not routinely recognised or followed by staff. A person’s care plan stated, “I have an electric razor in my room and prefer to use this over a wet shave.” We found daily records routinely recorded the person was supported with a “wet shave”. We observed some staff did not routinely listen to people’s preferences, or choices. A staff member informed a person it was lunch time. The person did not appear to understand but despite this the staff member continued to encourage the person to move to the dining room. No visual prompts were used to assist the person understand what was happening. We observed some staff appeared to have developed good knowledge of people’s likes and dislikes. We noted these were referred to in care plans.

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 and relatives felt the care provided and the environment they lived in was adequate. However, the limited access to the community did not promote equity in experience and outcomes for some people.

Staff had no specific feedback on this area.

The provider had an equality and diversity policy in place and staff were trained in diversity and equality to promote equity in experiences and outcomes for people. We observed a person did not have a window in their bedroom and described feeling isolated in the service. Other people told us the activities available did not interest them and this did not always meet their needs and interests.

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.