Canterbury House Care Home

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 received a personalised service and were at the centre of their care and support. People were provided with consistency and continuity of care by staff they knew and who knew them. People received dignified care at the end of their lives with support from external healthcare professionals. Information was provided to people in a way they could understand. People, relatives and staff had their views listened to and acted on.

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.

We observed positive interactions between people using the service and staff whereby the care provided was responsive and people’s needs were met. During the assessment two people displayed anxiety and frustration towards one another. Staff were observed to provide timely support to help alleviate the tension and potential escalation of the situation. A person was observed to become distressed as they were experiencing pain. Staff provided timely support resulting in the person no longer experiencing painful symptoms. Care plans were sufficiently detailed and covered people's individual care and support needs, including how the delivery of care and support was to be provided by staff. Care plans were regularly reviewed and updated to reflect when people’s needs changed. Staff spoken with knew people’s individual needs and preferences. Staff carried handsets so they could record the care provided in ‘real time’ and not retrospectively. This helped ensure the accuracy of the records.

Feedback from the 2024 survey showed people felt they could access the relevant services and healthcare professionals. There was a joined-up approach to ensuring people’s health needs were met including any complex health needs. People’s care plans recorded how people communicated and their preferred method of communication. Staff were aware that one person’s communication needs had significantly changed following a serious life-threatening medical condition occurring, impacting their ability to verbally communicate. The service was proactive in working closely with the local Speech and Language team [SALT] for advice and support, for example, devising a personalised communication book. Another person’s communication plan recorded they could experience difficulties when in pain or discomfort. This required staff to observe for non-verbal cues, such as facial expression and the person crying out. People were provided with consistency and continuity of care. If agency staff were required to cover an emergency staff vacancy such as, sickness then familiar agency staff were used that people knew. Staff used handovers between care shifts to pass on any important information or changes in health needs.

A relative told us that staff had adapted their communication style to effectively communicate with them about their loved one. Care plans had communication records in place for individuals. This was to guide staff on how best to effectively communicate with the people they supported. Staff were able to demonstrate a good understanding and knowledge of people’s individual communication needs. Information was provided to people in a way they could understand. For example, the food menu was in an easy read, pictorial and large print format to enable people with a disability, living with dementia or sensory loss to support people to understand the information. On the day of assessment, the menu did not reflect all of the meals provided as there had been a change. However, staff showed plated meals on offer to people so that they could make an informed choice in an understandable way.

People and relatives knew who to approach if they had any concerns or complaints and were confident these would be used as an opportunity to improve the quality of the service provided. Comments from people using the service included, “I know I can talk to the staff at any time. I am not backward in coming forward, if I was unhappy, I would say.” A relative told us, "I raised an issue a couple of weeks ago relating to my family member. The management team listened to what I had to say, and this has improved.” People and those acting on their behalf were given the opportunity to provide feedback about the service and their experience through satisfaction surveys. A satisfaction survey was carried out in January and February 2024, focussing on the care provided, wellness, food and nutrition and environment. Overall, the results recorded a high level of satisfaction was experienced within these 4 key areas. The provider had robust systems and processes in place to ensure people and those acting on their behalf felt comfortable and confident to raise concerns or issues. A record was kept of issues raised or complaints made by people using the service and those acting on their behalf. Staff told us they were confident to raise concerns with the management team and that these would be listened to and acted on. Team meetings were held to give the management team and staff the opportunity to express their views and opinions on the day-to-day running of the service.

Staff confirmed people could access care and support when needed, promoting their rights. The service worked with other healthcare organisations to ensure they delivered joined-up care and support, for example, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, GP surgeries, pharmacies, District Nurse services and local hospital provision. Records suggested people had access to healthcare services when needed and had access to services, both out of hours and in an emergency. There was no evidence to suggest people experienced delays in healthcare provision when support was sought. For example, a person using the service experienced swallowing difficulties whilst eating which could place them at risk of aspiration. Staff requested assistance from a healthcare professional and this was provided in a timely way.

Staff spoken with confirmed they had not witnessed or experienced any occasions whereby they had felt people using the service were discriminated against, or they had witnessed them not having their basic human rights met. For example, when people received healthcare support from external healthcare professionals and services. Care records demonstrated people were able to access services, including a range of external healthcare services and professionals throughout the day and out of hours. There was no evidence to suggest people experienced delays in healthcare provision.

Relatives told us staff had spoken with them about planning for the future if this was not already in place. Staff told us there was nobody actively being supported with end-of-life care at Canterbury House. However, staff spoke with sensitivity about how they supported people who were or approaching the end of their life. Staff told us they wanted the person who was at the end of their life to die in comfort and with dignity, and to be as pain free as possible. Staff told us steps would be taken to liaise with relevant healthcare professionals such as GP, community and district nurse and specialist palliative care teams. Arrangements had been made to respect people's and those acting on their behalf wishes and preferences at the end of their life. Care plans included specific information about how people wanted to be supported and receive care at the end of their life. For example, a person’s care plan recorded their decision for resuscitation [DNACPR], for staff to keep them as pain free and comfortable as possible and to remain at Canterbury House.