Martindale Road

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 identified breaches of Regulation in relation to person-centred care. People did not always receive person-centred care. Staff did not have the skills or information to communicate with people effectively. There were systems to help ensure equality of outcomes for people, although staff did not always demonstrate a good understanding of people's diverse needs. We did not assess all the quality statements within this key question. We used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

A relative told us they had not been involved in planning the person's care so that their individual needs were assessed, planned for or met in a personalised way. However, the provider told us they had invited relatives to 6 monthly reviews of care plans.

The regional manager told us they had identified a lack of external activities and engagement was a key problem at the service. They had started to look at ways to support staff to understand how to deliver person-centred care, including training and liaising with others within the organisation to learn good practice.

People did not receive person-centred care. Staff interactions met people's basic care needs and did not consider people's individual needs or preferences.

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.

Staff did not always provide information for people. They sometimes offered verbal choices, but they did not explore other ways to support people to understand or make choices. There were no pictorial menus or information about staff on display. A relative we spoke with told us they had asked for information about the service, staff on duty and how to make complaints but had not been provided with this and there was nothing for them to visually see. During our visit, an external worker attended to repair a person's chair. The person was sitting near this at the time and moved their wheelchair closer to look at what the worker was doing. A staff member was present but missed an opportunity to provide information because they did not explain what was happening to the person.

Staff told us they offered people choices by asking them questions.

The provider had information available in different formats. However, not everyone living at the service could understand easy to read information. There was limited use of pictorial or photographic information, or objects of reference at the home.

Relatives, advocates and people's other representatives were not always consulted to help ensure people's best interests were followed or they were involved. A relative told us they felt unable to give their views as they had not been listened to.

Staff told us they wanted to support people to make choices. Staff who were familiar with people told us they could recognise some facial expressions and gestures and how people were trying to communicate. But they told us they had not had enough training or information to help them communicate effectively.

The provider had systems to engage with people using services. Although these had not been effectively implemented at this home.

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 were not discriminated against, and people received equity in their experience regardless of their individual needs.

Some staff were unable to explain about people's different religious and cultural needs or how these were being met. For example, they did not always understand about the importance of people's religion or how to ensure people received a culturally appropriate diet.

The provider had procedures to help ensure equality and diversity for people using the service and staff. They provided training for staff so they could understand and respect people's diverse needs.

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.