Prema Court

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

Staff knew people’s individual needs, including cultural needs and how people preferred to communicate. Where required referrals were made to other professionals, although people did not always want to engage with these services. The service engaged with people through resident meetings. We were told senior staff had one to one sessions with people to gain their feedback about the service and their wishes and goals for the future. However, these were not recorded. Linked to our findings in the Effective key question, care staff were not aware of or involved in supporting people’s goals, and outcomes for the future.

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.

People were treated as individuals and staff knew their support needs. A relative said, “All staff know him so well.”

Seniors said they met with people regularly to discuss their mental health and support needs. However, these conversations were not recorded. Changes were made to the care plans when required, although care plans had not all been regularly reviewed.

There was no evidence people were involved in reviewing their care plans to ensure they remained current. There was no evidence people were supported to plan ahead for any important changes in their life.

Relatives said other professionals were involved in people’s support when needed, for example, GP or psychiatrist.

We were told the GP and psychiatrists were responsive when an appointment or home visit were requested. The home also worked with people’s care coordinators where one was allocated.

Greater Manchester Mental Health trust had not worked with the service to regularly review people’s needs. Reviews had recently started to be completed.

Referrals were made to drug and alcohol services; however, a lot of people did not want to engage with these services. Psychiatric appointments were made to review people’s mental health and when there were any changes in mental health. However, the registered manager said care plans needed more detail of the signs of a potential mental health relapse to assist staff in identifying when additional support and referrals to other professionals were needed.

Relatives said communication with the staff team was generally good. A relative said, “Staff communicate well with me, if there’s ever a problem they will let me know.”

Most people were able to verbally communicate. Where possible, members of staff who were able to speak in people’s first language were allocated to support them when they were on shift. Translation services, either on line or in person, were used if required. Seniors said they often spoke with people in the morning as people were best able to be involved at this time. They would then follow this up again later in the day. They also said you had to prompt and encourage people several times, sometimes over a couple of days, before they would complete something.

Information for people was not always available in other formats. One person whose first language was not English would have benefitted from information being shared with them, written in their first language. This had not been considered. One person was communicating with staff using a communication passport.

People said they were able to speak with staff if they wanted to.

Seniors said they held regular one to one sessions with people to discuss their mental health, activities and if they had any problems. However, these were not recorded. Care staff were not involved in supporting people with any agreed actions from these one to one discussions.

Residents’ meetings were held, but minutes were only available from the January meeting. The meetings discussed activities, the menu and the homes environment. The rules around smoking and drinking alcohol in the home were raised by staff.

Relatives said other professionals were involved in people’s support when needed, for example, GP or psychiatrist.

Referrals were made to drug and alcohol services; however, a lot of people did not want to engage with these services. Psychiatric appointments were made to review people’s mental health. We were told the psychiatrists were responsive to these requests. Not all people living at Prema Court had a named care coordinator. This meant their care and support was not regularly reviewed by the funding authority.

Not all people living at Prema Court had a named care coordinator. This meant their care and support was not regularly reviewed by the funding authority.

The provider information return highlighted barriers to people’s access to services. For example, a lack of mental health hospital beds in the area resulting in people being unable to be admitted to hospital when they needed to be and people not having a named mental health coordinator to monitor and review their support and wellbeing. Also, people may refuse to attend appointments due to their mental health and they are then removed from the practice list. This meant they then had to be rereferred to the service before another appointment could be made.

Feedback from relatives was mixed. One relative was positive about the support provided at Prema Court, saying, “Staff know [Name’s] mental health needs. Their health and mental health is the best it's ever been.” However, another said, “I don’t think they are equipped to fully meet [Name’s] needs.”

Staff were aware of people’s cultural needs and any support they needed to observe these, for example support to attend church or staff from the same culture to talk with about their faith. Staff said they introduced people to local shopkeepers, so they were then able to go to the shops independently.

The provider information return highlighted barriers to people’s access to services. For example, a lack of mental health hospital beds in the area resulting in people being unable to be admitted to hospital when they needed to be and people not having a named mental health coordinator to monitor and review their support and wellbeing. This affected people’s experience of service and their longer-term outcomes.

People did not want to discuss plans for the future with us.

People living at Prema Court were mainly younger adults and no one was receiving end of life care at the time of our inspection. If people wanted to stay at Prema Court at the end of their lives, and the home were able to meet their needs, then they would be able to do so.

People preferred not to engage in end of life planning at this time.