Peacemills 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 gave mixed feedback in regard to the responsiveness of the service when concerns were raised. People were supported to live in a safe, inclusive environment however we observed limited social engagement which meant there were missed opportunities to strengthen person-centred care at Peacemills. People were supported to gain access to advocacy services where needed to ensure they were fully knowledgeable in the care and support they were entitled to.

This service scored 79 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff responded to people’s individual needs. Staff were able to tell us about people living at Peacemills and told us they always respected people’s independence, dignity and choices. Staff were able to tell us where they found information relating to people’s needs. The management team told us they spent time with people to formulate care plans. Whilst care plans were inconsistent in detail and some needed further work to ensure accurate information was in place, there were parts of care plans that were person centred. For example, a care plan relating to a person’s social needs was detailed and provided staff with person-centred information to support them their social needs.

People told us staff supported them according to their needs. People told us staff knew them well and felt at ease with staff. People told us they were consulted about their care and the staff who supported them. For example, some of the people we spoke with had voiced a preferred gender to provide some aspects of personal care and people told us this was always respected.

During our visit to Peacemills we observed staff to treat people kindly however we observed inconsistencies in staff’s approach. We observed some staff to be task-orientated. For example, we observed staff attending to call bells and supporting people with their physical needs, but we did not observe staff engaging in any meaningful conversations with people. Whilst we did observe staff comforting one person when they became distressed, we observed another person looking for someone. Staff walked past and did not stop and enquire who they were looking for, and it was another person living at the home who was walking past who sat and talked with them, the person then appeared to relax. These observations meant there were inconsistencies in the level of person-centred care people received.

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 they knew who to raise concerns or comments to. However, we received mixed feedback in regards to whether their concerns were acted upon. For example, a person we spoke with told us, “I’ve been in the office before about the food - they said they’d be changing the menu soon, but my [relative] hasn’t noticed any difference.” We also received a concern during our inspection where the person felt the concerns they raised were not listened to in a timely manner and felt they had to escalate their concerns to an outside organisation to gain a response. However, we received several positive comments about the response to concerns and some people we spoke with told us they had never had cause to raise any comments or concerns.

Staff knew how to support people to ensure their voices were heard. Staff told us about residents’ meetings and informal chats they had with people to ensure they were supported to voice their opinions. The management team knew how to support people to gain access to an advocate and gave us an example of when they had supported a person to source an advocate to ensure they were supported with their financial needs.

Processes in place provided people and staff with the opportunity to voice concerns, compliments and to share ideas. The provider has a complaints process and policy in place. The complaints process was displayed for people, staff and visitors to see. An audit of complaints was completed monthly. A recent concern had been fully investigated by the operations manager to ensure a full impartial conclusion could be determined, people and their relative’s opinion were sought as part of the investigation. Staff meetings and residents’ meetings were carried out to provide people and staff with the opportunity to voice ideas and any concerns. We reviewed minutes of meetings and found action had been taken following meetings.

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.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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.