Silverpoint Court Residential 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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

We did not look at all quality statements for Responsive at this assessment. This rating uses some scores from the previous inspection. Care plans lacked personal detail and were not always person centred. We have identified breaches in person centred care.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good.

This service scored 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We found care plans did not always have enough detail in them around some areas such as personal care, health concerns and mobility. For one person we noted conflicting information about their mobility needs. One section of their care plan stated they used a walking aid, but this was not mentioned in other areas of the care plan. Care plans were not always person-centred and lacked detail of life history or social interests. We saw one person’s care plan had very brief details of activities the person enjoys and did not have any detail with regards to their family or marital status. There was no evidence the person had been involved in their care planning. We were not assured that representatives were involved in people’s care plans. A relative told us, they had not previously been involved in their [relatives] care plan or meetings regarding their health changes. This was a breach of Regulation for Person Centred Care. During our assessment the provider confirmed this had been identified and the provider has implemented a system to ensure that people were involved in their care planning.

We received mixed feedback from staff regarding care plans having enough detail in them. Some staff felt care plans could be clearer and updated more regularly and others felt they were detailed enough.

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.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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 told us they were supported to access the healthcare they needed such as visits from the GP or nurse. One person told us, “If I feel unwell, I tell them [staff] and they arrange for a doctor or nurse to see me.”

Feedback from health professionals was positive with one health professional telling us, “We work well with the staff and in particular the communication between the home and ourselves works very well.” We saw evidence of input from external health professional’s such as district nurses and dentist. The provider had health ‘champions’ in place for areas such as falls and oral care. The provider had developed a good working relationship with their GP practice.

Staff had completed training in equality and diversity and staff understood people had a right to be treated fairly and equally.

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.