Champion House - Care Home with Nursing Physical Disabilities

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

At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. We reviewed 3 quality statements in this assessment. We identified a breach of the legal regulation in relation to person centred care. People were not always at the centre of decision making about their care and support. People’s personal preferences were not always considered, particularly regarding the activities they engaged in. Staff did not always appear to offer people choices to make sure their individual needs were met. Systems were in place for people and relatives to give feedback on their care.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Some people said they were involved in reviewing their care plans, but others said input was limited. Comments from people included, “We don’t really discuss my care plan but there’s nothing I need that I don’t get”, “There’ll be a discussion if something needs to change and I’ll tell them what works best for me” and “I was involved a bit, not a lot.” A satisfaction survey was also carried out recently and 11 people responded. The results were analysed and showed 1 person did not feel involved in the planning of their care and 7 had not been offered a copy of their care plan.

Staff did not always appear to offer people choices to make sure their individual needs were met. We saw people sitting in the dining room, in specialist chairs, who appeared to have been positioned without consideration. We also observed meals were served to people with no apparent thought of including them in the dining experience, to promote their social interaction with other people. One person who was able to move themselves around in their specialist wheelchair, took their meals in the centre of the dining room. However, we did not see them invited or encouraged by staff to engage with other people.

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 were regular residents’ meetings where they could raise issues and ideas. However, 1 person told us they had raised concerns and felt these had not been listened to or acted on. We raised this with the interim manager who took action to address the concerns.

Staff told us they asked people what they needed before providing care. One staff member said, “We were told about the residents when we started, a lot of them have lived here a long time. But a lot of people here can say what they need as well, we can talk with them, and they’ll say I need this, or I need that. I work quite a lot with [resident]. We talk quite a lot so I get to know the kinds of support he will need. Everyone has a care plan as well so you can check that and read their daily notes if you need to know anything else.”

Systems were in place for people and relatives to give feedback on their care through satisfaction surveys, meetings, care reviews and the complaints procedure. The interim manager was aware that improvements were needed to ensure people's suggestions, ideas and needs were listened to and acted upon. This was identified in the provider's improvement plan.

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’s personal preferences were not always considered. People raised concerns about the lack of opportunities to go out and do activities as frequently as they would like. One person mentioned they sometimes had issues with staff understanding them and felt that may be due to a language barrier, or due to their speech impediment, or a mix of both. However, the service had worked to support people to meet their spiritual needs. One person told us, “I asked for a prayer tree, and they made one for me.”

The provider had processes in place to seek out people’s views. However, they were not effective to make sure people had equitable experiences, as people were not always fully involved in making decisions about their care and support. For example, 1 person told us they had previously enjoyed accessing an area of the home to watch the birds feeding in the garden. They were no longer able to do this as space had been re-designed and was now used by the management of the service.

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.