Leazes Hall 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. Whilst staff knew people’s individual needs well and care records were generally person-centred, care records for people with a learning disability were not always consistent. They lacked details in terms of recording how people were developing independence and achieving the goals they wanted to achieve. We have signposted the provider to the ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance.

Staff gave examples of the actions they took to support each person in a personalised way. Care plans were developed around people’s needs. Comprehensive life history information had been gathered for each person, enabling staff to provide support that was informed and responsive to the person’s background and experiences.

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.

Continuity was supported by long standing staff who knew people well, alongside communication processes such as handovers and team meetings. These systems enabled staff to share information promptly, respond quickly when people’s needs changed, and supported smooth transitions between services.

Staff identified where people needed additional support in a timely manner and carried out appropriate information gathering to make comprehensive referrals as necessary. Professionals told us the registered manager and effective information sharing supported safe decision making.

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

Since 2016 all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard. The Accessible Information Standard (AIS) tells organisations what they have to do to help ensure people with a disability or sensory loss, and in some circumstances, their carers, get information in a way they can understand it. It also says that people should get the support they need in relation to communication.

Records showed the service met the AIS as care plans set out people’s communication needs and how staff should share information. Information could be provided in different formats if needed, to ensure people received and understood the content in a way that suited them. Staff understood and respected people’s individual communication needs and styles. Staff kept relatives informed through regular phone calls, meetings and care reviews. People’s information was held securely and only shared with those who had the right of access.

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. Feedback was regularly sought, including through meetings, and people and relatives said this was acted on.

People and relatives told us staff and the management team were approachable and they would feel comfortable raising a concern or complaint. Complaints were appropriately investigated and responded to in a timely manner.

The provider helped people to access the care and support they needed when they needed it. Staff arranged regular visits from health and social care professionals, and quickly sought advice when they noticed changes, for example after falls or when new health concerns were identified.

Improvements had been made to the environment, and more were planned, which had a positive impact on people.

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 knew people and their needs well and used this knowledge to help people achieve positive outcomes. Staff completed training in equality and diversity to understand and reduce inequalities or prejudices that affected outcomes for people.

People experienced kind, consistent care that promoted equality and inclusion, regardless of their needs or level of independence. Feedback gathered showed people felt safe, respected and well supported.

A relative said, “The staff all seem to know everybody. I don’t know how they do it. I think it must be because they really care about each person and know exactly what they need.”

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. Where preferences were expressed, these were recorded within personalised care plans to help ensure people’s choices were understood and respected.