Palmarium

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 reviewed all 7 quality statements in this key question.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Relatives felt people could be more stimulated within their home environment and have greater access to their local community. However people received person-centred care and support, staff supported people in line with their individual support plans. Each person had their own accommodation which was equipped to meet their personal needs.

Staff spoke with us in detail about the person-centred care they were delivering, including recognising when people wanted less or more support.

We observed staff providing person-centred support.

Relatives told us people were supported by regular staff who knew people well. Relatives told us when they visited the service, they recognised staff working there.

Managers told us they used their own permanent relief staff when there were gaps in the staffing numbers. Agency staff were used at times and managers told us they tried to use the same agency staff to ensure continuity in people’s care.

We received mixed feedback from professionals. For example social care professionals told us that there were more opportunities that could be used to enhance people’s community experience and communication. However, health professionals supporting people told us that they worked regularly with the provider and the staff to improve people’s care and support.

People’s care records demonstrated the service had worked with other care providers and health services to ensure people received continuity of care. Staff rotas demonstrated there was minimal agency use and regular staff were providing the care and support.

People had information in formats that supported their communication needs.

The registered manager showed us how they produced easy read documents where required to support people’s understanding of information shared.

All organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow Accessible Information Standard (AIS) The AIS tells organisations what they have to do to help ensure people with a disability or sensory loss, get information in a way they can understand it. We found that the provider was following the AIS ensuring people’s communication needs were known and recorded. We observed pictorial information and personalised communication methods were used for people.

Relatives told us they knew how to complain, and 1 relative told us the registered manager was approachable. Some relatives felt unsure of complaining due to how they felt staff and managers made them feel when they complained. They told us they did not always feel comfortable raising their concerns.

Staff told us they involved people by using communication methods that suited them, such as visual or audio aids. Staff told us they tried to make sure people’s views were included in the care plan. One member of staff told us, “[Person] tells us in [their] way what the care plan should say for them. [Person] can’t tell us what they want in the care plan, but being [person’s] key worker and involving everyone, we try to make sure [person’s] views are included and form what we do.”

The provider had a complaints policy and process to manage any complaints. A record of complaints received was kept by the registered manager which included actions taken.

Relatives told us that people had support to access local services. However they felt that people could be supported more often to access their local community. People had their own purpose built flats which were accessible to them.

Staff worked to reduce barriers to people’s care and make sure they could access all the services they needed. For example, staff told us that 1 person was supported to access quiet areas of their community. Staff told us a goal was set to access more areas as the person became more comfortable with each environment.

Professionals felt that people were supported to access local services. However, some felt that more community access could be provided, for example during a meeting involving a social worker a person’s activity chart was discussed. Professionals highlighted that the person could access the community more frequently than the chart noted.

Records demonstrated people were supported to attend healthcare appointments. People’s records also demonstrated people were able to be involved in activities within the home.

Relatives told us that people had support that met their needs.

Staff told us that long and short term goals were set with involvement from people. Goals included supporting people to work towards a greater access to local services.

Records demonstrated that people’s care and support was provided consistently. People were enabled to participate in activities in the service and in the wider community.

We did not receive any concerns regarding this quality statement during our assessment.

The registered manager told us that they were beginning conversations with relatives regarding people’s end of life plans,

The service did not at the time of the assessment have any formal end of life plans in place. The implementation of the new electronic care plan system had promoted the need for conversations to start regarding end of life care planning.