Bethany House 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.

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 71 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans often lacked detail about holistic support, and some guidance was generic, limiting personalised care. Systems for recording care were not fully effective, with repeated generic entries across multiple records.

People and their relatives were not always involved in developing or reviewing care plans. Records often contained limited information about what mattered most to individuals, and personal histories were not consistently explored. Care plans lacked clear, detailed guidance for staff on how to meet people’s holistic needs, which reduced opportunities for truly person-centred care.

However, the service offered a varied activity programme tailored to individual interests, including quizzes, exercise, arts and crafts, cooking, gardening, and musical entertainment. We observed a dedicated meeting for male residents to ensure their preferences were considered. Transport supported regular trips, and spiritual needs were met through access to nearby religious services. People spoke positively about activities. One person told us, “I love the bingo and being outside on the veranda. We have resident meetings every month.”

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.

Staff worked effectively with health partners to maintain continuity of care. They made timely referrals to other services when needed, and staff followed professional advice to ensure people received appropriate support.

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

People’s communication needs were assessed and recorded within care plans. The service was aware of the Accessible Information Standard and had systems in place to support this.

People and their relatives told us information about their care was shared when needed. The registered manager told us that key information was available in easy read or pictorial format, such as the complaint’s procedure, activity schedule and menu boards.

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.

The provider had a complaints policy, and the service actively sought feedback from people. A formal complaints process was in place and displayed in the reception area, with accessible formats available if required. Monthly residents’ meetings were held, and future dates were clearly displayed on a notice board. For those unable to attend, staff arranged one-to-one visits in their rooms to ensure everyone had the opportunity to share their views. People could also leave anonymous feedback by placing messages in sealed envelopes for the registered manager’s attention. Newsletters included details of changes made following feedback from people.

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

The registered manager and staff had established effective working relationships with health and social care professionals. This collaborative approach supported continuity of care and helped people receive appropriate interventions. Staff acted promptly when concerns about health or wellbeing arose, escalating issues and seeking professional advice without delay. Referrals to external professionals were made quickly, and advice was followed. People benefited from input from a range of clinicians, including dietitians, tissue viability nurses, community mental health teams, and occupational therapists.

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.

Staff considered people’s diverse needs and provided care without discrimination. Equality and diversity training formed part of the provider’s mandatory programme, helping staff understand and respect individual differences. People told us they felt well cared for and spoke positively about the staff who supported them. Care was delivered in a way that promoted inclusion and respected each person’s identity, preferences, and cultural background. We observed a variety of activities accessible to everyone using the service.

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.

Everyone was offered the opportunity to plan for their future care, including end-of-life preferences, although some chose not to discuss this when they first moved into the service. We reviewed examples of personalised end-of-life care plans that reflected what was important to people and their decisions. This approach supported staff to respect people’s wishes and helped ensure they experienced dignified and comfortable end-of-life care.