H M T Care - 48 Albany Drive

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 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.

People received care that was personalised to their wishes and preferences. This included being able to decorate their rooms to reflect their own personalities, such as with football memorabilia or photos of their family. The service supported people to continue to access activities that were meaningful to them such as going to the pub. There was clear guidance for staff on the things that were important to each person. We received feedback about how the service worked to celebrate important events such as birthdays. One relative told us, “They are really thoughtful about things like birthdays, they can arrange something like a tea party in the garden. They focus on each individual and their needs.”

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 were supported by a team of staff who were knowledgeable and new them well, including how to support people in making choices. A professional who worked with the service told us, “Regular staff seem to have an in-depth knowledge of the residents, their families, their interests, their sense of humour. The rapport always seems very good between residents and staff.”

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

Not everybody at the service could communicate verbally, however staff were knowledgeable about other ways people could express themselves or makes their wishes known. There was clear individualised communication guidance for each person to give them maximum opportunity to be involved in their own care. This included use of pictorial tools for people to point to if they could not communicate a decision verbally. One staff member told us, “Even if people cannot communicate, it’s important that I speak to them at all times and explain what I am doing. Some people might communicate a wish by pushing away, gestures such as thumbs up or vocalisations. Everyone is different. For some people we have flash cards we can use if struggling to understand each other”.

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.

There were lots of opportunities for people to give feedback on their care, or that of their loved one. This included annual surveys to gather people’s experience of care from which the provider created actions plans to address any concerns people had raised. There was a complaints policy which people we spoke to felt comfortable to use if needed, however there had been no complaints within the last 12 months. Staff regularly sat down with people to discuss how things were going for them and any changes that could be made. People had recently raised suggestions about things they would like to see on the menu and activities they would like to do, and we saw these changes had been made or scheduled.

People and their relatives told us there was strong communication with the service such as if people’s needs changed, and they felt comfortable providing feedback that they views were actively sought out. One relative told us, “If I see something wrong I go straight to the office and raise things. I am very happy with the care”. Another relative added “They are really good at getting us involved.”

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

People were supported to access the health and care support they needed in a way that was personalised to them. For example, in accessing routine appointments or making referrals if people’s health needs changed. A stakeholder working with the home told us, “Staff seem proactive at chasing referrals to other agencies or services if they feel the matter is becoming more urgent. I feel they are good advocates for the residents.”

Staff ensured people were able to spend time with people important to them, including having a visitors at any time of their choosing. We saw people spending time with visitors during our inspection. One relative told us, “We can visit at any time. Staff bend over backwards to help people. They treat people like human beings here. We have seen a significant improvement. Our relative seems happier and much more relaxed.”

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.

We heard several examples of how the service had supported people to have an improved quality of life and overcome barriers, including being able to participate in their community and the things that mattered to them. For instance, one person had been cared for in bed for several years, however through support from staff and professionals they were now able to sit in an adapted chair and had been able to go into the community for first time recently. Another person had been supported to attend matches of Chelsea football club, which they had never been able to do before. Other people had been supported to go to a holiday camp, or to volunteer and regularly attend their local gym. One person told us “I go out to gym on a Monday I volunteer in the laundry at a local care home and go out walking too”.

People were not always 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.

The service worked with people and their representatives to make decisions about high level wishes their health were to deteriorate, including whether they would wish to be resuscitated. However, it was not always clear that where people had capacity to do, they been supported to discuss other more holistic wishes around the end of life that might reflect people’s spiritual, cultural or social needs. There was no clear documentation that these areas had been explored to give people maximum opportunity to make advance decisions. Where people had made previous advance wishes based on their life histories, the provider supported them to continue to do so when they no longer had capacity to make decisions. For example, continuing to socialise at the local pub or attending football matches for the team they supported.