Charnwood 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

We assessed all quality statements in the responsive key question and found areas of concern. People were not supported in a person-centred way. Documentation did not reflect people’s preferences and individual needs. Staff explained that routines were arranged according to the care home routines, rather than being guided by people’s preferences. Information was not always provided in a way that people understood, and people were not listened too. There was limited access to activities outside of the care home. The activities inside the care home were also limited and not decided according to people’s preferences. Staff had received training in how to care for people at the end of their life, but we saw people may not always receive good care at the end of their lives. This was because care was not person centred.

This service scored 29 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People did not receive person-centred care. This is because routines were not decided by themselves and staff did not have clear guidance on how people liked to be cared for.

Staff explained that care plans did not provide enough guidance to them. They explained that longer term staff had gotten to know people, however due to a rushed induction process the newer staff did not understand people’s unique needs as well.

The culture in the care home did not focus on meeting people’s individual preferences and needs. For example, people were not involved in planning what type of meals they would like on the menu. The menu of the day was printed on a wall, however the font used was difficult to read and not suitable for people living with dementia.

Relatives told us that staff did not always work in a joined-up way with local health teams. A relative explained that the person was referred to a specialist health team 6 months ago. The specialist health team had still not visited. The relative was concerned that the staff at the home had not taken action to follow up this referral and ensure the person was reviewed, or given alternative support with their health condition.

Staff felt that they had effective joined up working with the local GP surgery. This is because there were regular routine GP visits, to ensure people’s needs were reviewed. However, staff also reported that documentation was not always kept up to date, which could impact their understanding of people’s needs.

We received no feedback from partners in this area.

Documentation at the service was not always kept up to date. This meant it was not always clear which professionals had been referred to, or what advice had been given by these professionals. Charnwood Care home is a nursing home, we found that documentation related to nursing needs were not always good quality. This is because illnesses and the nursing care required for these were not clearly recorded. This can impact continuity of care in the staff nursing team.

People explained that they had not seen copies of their care plans. They had also not been involved in writing this guidance documentation. This meant people were not provided with clear information about how their care could be provided.

Staff explained that there was equipment in the building to aid communication. For example, picture cards. However, staff explained they had not received training in how to use these communication aids.

We saw no evidence that people had been given information in an accessible way. This includes not giving people information on how to complain, who the manager was or how to feedback about their care.

People were not effectively involved with planning or reviewing their care, which includes activities they may like to do. We observed one person took part in an activity. Afterwards, the staff member asked them for feedback using closed questions like, “Did it help your self-esteem?” The staff member asked these set questions, while typing on an electronic device. This method for gathering feedback after an activity was overly formal, relies on the person understanding the terms used and is not effective at understanding a person’s true experience.

The manager had completed an audit. This found that there was no evidence that people were involved in planning their care. The audit also found residents care was not regularly reviewed. This audit had happened 3 weeks before our assessment, we saw no evidence that improvements had been made

We saw no evidence that people were involved with planning their care. There had been limited surveys or meetings with people living at Charnwood Care Home. Relatives had been contacted by a survey, however it had only resulted in one response.

Relatives told us that people did not always experience good access to medical care. They reported that staff were not always aware of changes in a person’s medical condition, and that staff were not always skilled to care for a person’s medical needs.

People did not have easy access to activities outside of the care home. Staff reported that people were not supported to leave the care home unless their relatives or visitors took them. A staff member said “Residents are just told that they can’t go out. But there isn’t a reason given really.”

We did not receive feedback from partners.

People’s ability to access facilities outside the care home was not clearly documented in care plans. This meant staff did not have guidance on who could access external activities (like social activities or health appointments), who would need support and how this support should be provided.

People did not always have good experiences and outcomes. Staff did not always record what care they were providing. Where people’s health had deteriorated this was not always clearly recorded.

Staff explained they did not always have clear communication between different working shifts. This meant they were not always up to date on changes in people’s needs. We saw staff did not always record the care provided, this would make it difficult for the next staff on shift to understand people’s experience and needs.

People’s unique needs were not recorded in their care plans. This impacted their experience and outcomes. For example, the manager explained that one person benefited from staff using sign language. However, the care plan did not give staff clear guidance on how to communicate, and staff had not had training in this language. Staff had not received training on people’s unique health conditions. Care plans did not give guidance on how to meet people’s medical needs. This meant people were at risk of not receiving good quality care.

We found people were not always consulted on their preferences and routines. We were therefore not assured that people would have a positive experience at the end of their life

Staff explained that people did not always receive good quality support with their personal hygiene. One staff member explained that a person was left in faeces at the end of their life.

Care plans did not include holistic information on how people would like to be cared for when they came to the end of their life. This meant people’s personal preferences may not be effectively met.