Longview

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

Responsive- – this means we looked for evidence that the service met people's needs. At our last inspection the rating for this key question good. At this assessment this key question has remained good. The quality statements we looked at were Listening to and Involving People and Equity in Experience and Outcomes. People and staff told us they had not experienced any discrimination or inequalities when accessing care, support and treatment when they need it.

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 and relatives did not always feel involved in their care. Although people told us staff were accessible to discuss their care, relatives felt they were not always involved in the care planning and decision making process.

Staff worked with people to understand how they wished to be support and promoted positive outcomes for them. Staff knew people well and were able to describe their care needs and the support they required as individuals. However, peoples care plans and risk assessments were not always person centred.

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.

People told us there was staff around to talk to. One person told us they regularly attended resident meetings and was the ambassador for the service. People told us they can make suggestions on the menu. A person told us, “I'm quite happy here, I like my food and choose to have it in the dining area so I can get out a bit. They are very flexible with the food here so you can always choose an alternative meal if you don't fancy anything on the menu. Another person told us, “I would love to have a cooked breakfast. That is not an option.” Following the site visit, management told us they would look at breakfast options available to people on the menu. Relatives, we spoke to provided mixed feedback regarding raising concerns and how they were responded to. A relative told us there had been a lot of management change but things were improving. Another relative told us, “I feel [relative] is talked down to all the time, like patronizing, they do the same with other residents too. I have raised this but I don’t always feel we get listened to.”

People were given the opportunity to give feedback about their experiences of care and support. There was a monthly meeting with all people to give them an opportunity to discuss the running of the service and if there were any changes they wanted to discuss or implemented. We saw from minutes they had discussed menus and individual activities people wished to do. Relatives were also given the opportunity to attend a relatives meeting. The manager sent surveys to relatives and people using the service to gather feedback about the service. The results were analysed for themes and trends.

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 told us they were supported to access the healthcare they needed such as visits from the GP practice, nurses, opticians and dentists. One person told us, “I have seen the doctor and the district nurse also comes to visit me regularly.” Another person said, “I see the GP when I want to.” People told us they felt involved and listened to at the service by joining in with resident and relative meetings.

Staff confirmed they had completed training in equality and diversity. Staff were aware of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Acknowledging diversity and valuing differences. Although there had been a lot of management changes; there was a positive culture for staff within the workforce. Staff told us they felt well supported by their colleagues and the manager. Staff were happy in their role which created a pleasant atmosphere at the service, impacting on the support people received. A staff member told us, “The current manager is very hands on and is extremely approachable. The manger has created a positive atmosphere in the home and we are all working hard together to make the improvements we need to make.” Staff spoken with confirmed they had not witnessed or experienced any occasions whereby they had felt any of the people using the service were discriminated against, or they had witnessed people not having their basic human rights met. For example, when people received healthcare support from healthcare professionals and services.

Staff ensured people had access to healthcare to maintain their wellbeing. Where indicated people were supported to attend specialist health appointments for continued monitoring and treatment. The service had developed good relationships with their GP practice and district nurse team. Feedback we received from 1 professional stated “As far as I am aware and whenever I am present on site, I have observed the staff being very caring and sympathetic towards the residents. The staff will always talk to me about clients’ needs. Whenever I speak to the staff about a client, they always listen and act on it if need be.” Another health professional told us, “In recent months the manager/management turnover was very high. The current manger is very approachable and communicate with the team well. Previous managers were not very approachable or was not communicating. Currently I feel that there has been an improvement in their management of the care home.” However, another health professional told us, “When carers or care team leaders notice skin abnormalities, they are often not reported or managed appropriately. There are also several people noted as having dry skin and there is rarely evidence of this being managed appropriately.”

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.