Chestnut 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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. At our last inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. For example, a 6-monthly review was held with people and their families to agree people’s care and support needs. Care was provided in accordance with people’s individual needs and preferences. One person told us, “I stay in my room more than I go downstairs. I don’t feel lonely, it’s my choice.”

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. Staff worked well with external services, for example, physiotherapists and chiropodists regularly visited the home to support people.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. For example, people’s communication needs were recorded in their care plans. We observed staff communicating effectively with people and relatives said communication with the home was good.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. Relatives said they were able to raise any questions or concerns with the registered manager or management team. They said these would be addressed straight away. A relative told us, “If I have had questions, they deal with them.” Regular resident meetings were held and surveys for relatives and visiting professionals were completed annually to gather feedback about the service. Any issues or suggestions had been followed up by the management team.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. For example, the home was accessible and took action to minimise any barriers people faced accessing it. District nurses told us staff would identify if a person had an area of red skin so prompt action could be taken before it developed any further.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. For example, staff completed training in equality and diversity to understand and reduce inequalities or prejudices that affected outcomes for people. The manager ensured the healthcare needs of those living with dementia were fully considered and met.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. For example, people and their families were involved in planning how they would like to be cared for at the end of their lives, including if they did not want to receive care to allow them a dignified death.