Snowdrop House

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 felt their needs were met in a way which met their preferences and choices. Processes in place supported people to be involved in the planning and reviewing of their care. People, staff and relevant stakeholders were listened to and decisions about care and the running of the service were made in partnership. Opportunities to provide feedback were consistently offered. Information was made available to people. Where this involved making plans for the future, this was done in detail with clear records of decisions and care preferences in place.

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.

People felt their needs were met in a way which met their preferences and choices. A person said, “The care is done how I like it.” Another person said, “I’m happy and have everything I need.” People told us they were involved in reviews of their care. The provider operated a ‘resident of the day’ system where a person’s planned care, documentation, engagement and environment was the focus of a review. Care plans were very detailed and gave clear, personalised information about people’s needs, preferences and lifestyles. These were updated with changes as needed and reflected people’s involvement.

Staff told us they felt they provided person centred and good care. A staff member said, “I would have a relative of mine live here.”

People’s needs were met in a way people preferred and needed. Support was given in a way that showed staff knew people well. Staff were chatting with people and following their preferred routines. However, we observed one person who was struggling to eat their food, which impacted on their intake and dignity. We queried the need for aids or support for this person. This was addressed on the day of our visit and action taken to improve their experience.

People with varying care needs were living at the service. Staff worked with professionals to ensure the support provided met their needs.

Staff told us they had regular discussions about people they supported. A staff member said, “We do handovers on every shift. Handover covers residents of the day, admissions/discharges, staff duty and designation, accidents and incidents during the shift, new pressure ulcers, injuries or lesions, any person with new concern requiring observations such as behaviour, acute illness, weight loss, appointments etc, any concern raised by visitor or visiting professionals, changes to resident medication.”

Staff adapted their approach to meet the individual needs of people they supported. Feedback from partners seen was positive. They confirmed that staff and management were friendly, approachable and worked well with their services to achieve positive outcomes for people.

Care plans included information from reviews and assessments to ensure equipment and funding was in place. For example, mobility equipment, falls sensors, pressure relieving equipment and increased funding for nursing care. Staff worked with professionals to provide up to date information.

People told us they had access to information as they needed it. This included when they moved in, information about the service and events in the home. There was an activities schedule shared with everyone. People told us they checked this daily.

Staff told us information was shared with people and relatives and that their views were sought. A staff member said, “People and their relatives get asked for their views and feedback.”

The registered manager used a number of ways to effectively share information. This included newsletters, meetings and events. Care plans detailed people’s preferred communication methods and ways in which staff should adapt their communication.

People told us there were meetings and they were comfortable to make a complaint or speak up about anything they needed. A person said, “The [registered] manager [name] is always around, I see [them] in the coffee shop, they (management team) come in regularly and ask how things are, if I need any changes or make any suggestions.”

Staff were positive about how the registered manager responded to feedback, ideas or concerns. A staff member said, “If there’s any person or relative who raised a complaint, my manager will call up a meeting to all care staff.”

There were systems and processes in place to seek feedback from people. This included a complaints process, regular meetings and surveys. The registered manager also used ‘manager surgery’s’ to make themselves available to receive any feedback people or relatives may wish to share with them. All feedback and information shared was recorded, with records showing actions taken in response and how the information was shared to effect changes.

People told us they received the care they needed when they needed it. This included any healthcare input. A person said, “I see a doctor when I need to.”

Staff told us they were provided with daily opportunities to request any additional health or social care input that might be needed for people, and this was arranged.

Feedback from partner was positive. They confirmed that management engaged well with their services and they found staff to be helpful and proactive in their work to ensure people received the care they needed.

The provider had a clear system in place to ensure all people had access to care, support and treatment outside of the service as needed such as the enhanced care practitioner, out of hours GP, or escalation to emergency services if needed.

People with varying needs, backgrounds and cultures were supported by the home. They told us they felt well supported. Our observations found people were supported as individuals and they had the freedom to live how they chose.

Staff told us people were treated equally and as individuals. A staff member said, “People receive person centred care.”

The service had policies and processes in place to ensure people were treated equally and took action to ensure all people were provided with opportunities to give feedback about their care.

People had shared their preferences about their end-of-life care with staff when they wished to. People receiving end of life care were comfortable and had the support they needed.

Staff were able to clearly explain what good end of life care looked like. They told us about a holistic approach in place. A staff member said, “Good end of life care means people who are dying need care in four areas: Physical comfort, mental and emotional needs, spiritual needs and practical needs. The family of a dying person needs support as well as with practical tasks and emotional distress.”

Care plans included clear end of life plans and care preference information. This included if people had chosen not to speak about it. There was a record of any Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) and Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) processes completed where people had these in place.