Archived: Two Rivers 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 were still living limited lives with no attempts to look at people’s ambitions, interests, and dreams. No work from the provider and managers were taking place to upskill staff about this aspect of people’s care and lives. Staff, managers and the provider still had low expectations for people when it came to what might interest them and make life fun. Very little was happening to make life fun and interesting for people. Blanket daily routines and outings remained. The provider was still not assessing this aspect of people’s care and lives. People’s food and mealtime experiences had deteriorated, and staff continued to struggle to engage with people as individuals. The home environment had deteriorated with equipment and décor looking warn out especially in people’s bedrooms. Institutionalised practices remained such as notices about people’s care being about the home, with incontinence equipment personal protective equipment (PPE) and cleaning items being obviously displayed in people’s rooms.

This service scored 25 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People could not tell us about this.

The staff team had not been trained and supported to understand this concept and advocate for people in this way. Staff were aware about how they should respond to a change in health needs but not about people's mental and emotional well being.

Blanket routines remained which were group focused. No individual events took place. People's interests were sometimes known by staff but no work was completed to support people to experience these or develop these interests. The environment looked tired, meal experiences were poor, and people did not have access to toilet paper to enable staff to respond to people's incontinence care in a person centred way.

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 could not tell us about this.

One member of staff told us how they had come to understand how individuals communicate their feelings and views. But other staff had not nor was this explored in the new care plans the management team had recently produced.

Blanket routines, meals options, events still prevailed at the service. The provider had not ensured people experienced a person centred care experience. The provider was not assessing this aspect of the care their staff and managers were providing to identify if improvements were happening and if not take robust action.

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 could not tell us about this.

Staff had not been supported or trained to consider this aspect of people's care.

The provider had not created a culture or processes where inequality would be considered and challenged. Managers and providers had not challenged some DoLS professionals when they were assessing the restrictions people were experiencing and they had not captured and considered all the restrictions people were facing.

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.