Redstacks

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

Care and support were centred around people’s individual routines and preferences. Staff knew people very well and adapted day-to-day support around what mattered to them, such as where they preferred to spend their time, how they liked to eat and drink, and how much support they wanted with personal care. People and relatives told us staff focused on the person, not just the task. Staff used daily notes to record how people had spent their day and any changes in their wellbeing.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People received consistent support from a stable team who knew them well. Relatives told us this continuity helped their family members feel secure and settled. Staff coordinated care with health professionals to ensure timely interventions and followed the instructions given. Where people had multiple providers involved, staff coordinated support so care remained joined-up. For example, the deputy manager tracked appointments with dietitians, speech and language specialists and opticians, and used this information to update care plans and share guidance with the staff team. Staff described effective handovers.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People and relatives received clear information about the service and ongoing care, and staff provided updates in ways that suited each family. There was a welcoming atmosphere in the office, and relatives told us they felt able to phone or visit to discuss any questions about care. One relative told us staff, “Keep me well informed.” Another said they had “lots of chats” with the registered manager, which gave them reassurance about their family member’s care.

The home displayed key information such as the complaint’s procedure, recent inspection outcomes and training information in the reception area.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People and their relatives told us managers were approachable and listened when they raised ideas or concerns. Regular residents’ meetings gave people the chance to shape menus, activities and outings, and records showed the service acted on suggestions. Relatives said they were confident issues would be dealt with. One family member told us, “They’ve sorted it straight away if ever I’ve mentioned anything.”

Managers had also introduced telephone surveys for relatives alongside ‘resident of the day’ checks to make it easier for families who could not always attend in person to share their views.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People could access the care and support they needed when they needed it, and reasonable adjustments were made to reduce barriers. For example, to support mobility, communication and access to healthcare. Staff accompanied people to appointments when needed.

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.

People had consistently positive experiences regardless of need level, with detailed support for nutrition, pressure care and continence. Staff used additional monitoring for people at higher risk. There was no evidence of discriminatory practice.

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.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, including end of life, although practice was more developed for some individuals than others. For example, there was detailed end of life planning in place for 1 person, including an advance care plan, documentation and clear guidance on their preferred place of care, symptom management and family involvement. Staff had regular contact with the person’s relative and welcomed them to visit at any time, which helped ensure care reflected the person’s and family’s wishes.