Tudor Manor

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

People were supported to live in a safe, inclusive environment in which they were treated fairly and free from the fear of being discriminated against. People were supported to understand their equality and human rights and how staff and managers would respect these. Managers made sure staff were given appropriate training and supported to treat people equally and fairly and reduce the risk of them being excluded from receiving care and support they were entitled to. Managers used people’s feedback to improve care to reduce any barriers people might experience due to their protected characteristics.

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.

People had person centred care plans and risk assessments in place. Care plans were still being developed to ensure full details are carried over from needs assessments, also that peoples care plans referenced their support required since moving into the home. People had personal objects in their bedrooms. People were asked if they wished to have their rooms decorated when moving into the home.

Staff told us how they promoted and provided person-centred care. We observed staff caring for people taking into consideration their wishes and preferences. Staff and management responded to people appropriately and in line with their care plan guidance. The management team and staff encouraged people who moved in to make their bedrooms personal to them. This included decorating and having items such as personal photos and furniture.

People told us that health professionals were involved in their care, this included professionals regularly visiting the home. Health professionals included district nurses, GP’s, dieticians and behavioural support.

Stakeholders provided feedback which demonstrated the provider reached out appropriately for additional health services when required. Stakeholders told us the home was very welcoming to receiving feedback to improve the quality of care provided.

The provider had a process in place where they were flexible to meet people’s needs. Where support hours were required to be adapted to meet people’s activities, this took place. People were encouraged to be involved in local community activities and events that took place.

The service had adapted communication to meet people’s needs. This came in the form of easy read documents. Care plan guidance was in place to help staff to effectively communicate with people that ensured the person’s needs were met. One person stated that at times the home did not always look at how information was communicated, for example, where a person is blind, its not appropriate to have a poster in their bedroom with the complaint’s procedure.

Staff understood the different formats in which documents were available. The registered manager told us, before people move into the home, an assessment involving all stakeholders was completed to ensure appropriate communication guidance was in place. Staff and management understood the importance of communication being made available for all and that information was up to date and reviewed regularly. However, there were occasions where the home needed to improve and ensure they meet all people’s communication needs.

The provider had a process in place where accessible information was available, this information could be found in easy read, large print or picture format. However, information for blind people was not found in place or adapted for their needs. We saw relatives were asked about their preferred communication methods and invited to relative meetings held at the home. The provider makes monthly calls to relatives to gain feedback and complete a check in. Where guidance was updated, for example, COVID-19 guidance, the provider ensured all who lived in the service and relatives were sent the up to date information.

People were asked regularly by the manager and provider for feedback. This was gathered in surveys, check ins and suggestions. Feedback always included any improvements or ideas for the home. For example, introducing local activities for people to either attend or have interaction within the home.

The manager told us they requested feedback from relatives, stakeholders and health professionals which helped them improve the service and care provided.

We saw surveys were sent out to relatives and people to gain feedback. This was completed monthly and annually. Where relevant, we saw evidence the service actioned improvements following immediate feedback.

People were able to access the care and support they required as needed.

Staff told us, when a person required additional support from a service outside of the home such as GPs, nurses and dieticians, numbers were available, and the management team supported with the referral process.

The home would complete referrals to additional health professionals or stakeholders where appropriate. We saw where referrals were made these were recorded in a person’s care records and care plan.

We observed staff supporting people to achieve their outcomes. Care plans for people were tailored to match their care needs and personal interests.

Staff understood how to care for people equally and recorded the care they provided in daily care notes. The provider would assess and understood the importance to meet people’s preferences. For example, where people spoke in a different language other than English, this would be included in the recruitment process to source the correct person to meet a person’s additional need.

People’s unique needs and identity was recorded in their care plans. Staff were given guidance on how to support the person’s needs to ensure people’s health and wellbeing positively. However, we found information in additional plans lacked detail and needed improvement to provide guidelines to staff. For example, a person’s breathing plan, held very basic detail. There was a clear policy on equality and diversity. This policy encouraged staff to treat people well and provide people with equal opportunities regardless of their protected characteristics. Records documented visits by health professionals and the advice given. Staff then actioned these to ensure positive outcomes for people. Staff had received training on people’s unique health conditions. This meant they could understand people’s symptoms, recognise changes in their health and act appropriately.

People were involved in important changes to their life. We saw stakeholders were invited to best interest meetings, this ensured that where the person lacked capacity, the correct people were involved in making a decision that could impact or change a person’s life.

The management team told us, plans for the future included increasing the capacity of the home and having new people move in. The provider was very clear that assessments would be completed thoroughly, and they were committed to ensuring no impact to the home or people was caused.

The provider had a process in place to record people’s decisions about their future. This was on a best interest form, which then fed into their care planning. Staff received end of life training.