The Old Vicarage

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.

Staff knew people and their needs well. However, care plans and risk assessments were not always person centred. Often the information provided was generic or contradictory. This meant people were at risk of receiving care which was not person-centred. Following the inspection the provider confirmed plans were in place to improve the electronic care planning system.

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 had access to community health practitioners, such as, GPs, Dentists, District Nurses and other professionals when needed. Care records evidenced appointments and visits taking place. A visiting healthcare professional said, “Staff always appear to work well as a team and [the registered manager] is very accessible when needing information that staff may not know.”

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

Information about the service was available in large print formats, including a welcome booklet for new residents. Information was also clearly displayed around the service. A relative said, “If I have any queries then [staff] show me the computer records straight away which is reassuring.”

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.

We received mixed feedback around whether the service listened to people and relatives. However, residents’ meetings took place regularly and there was a process in place for dealing with formal complaints. Where people had raised issues, the provider had responded. The service had also received many examples of positive feedback in the form of thank you cards or emails.

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

Staff understood the importance of ensuring people had access to the right health and social care services. People were supported to access treatment as needed, with families being informed and involved when appropriate.

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 equal experiences and opportunities. People told us staff knew them well and helped them achieve positive outcomes.

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.

Staff had received training to support people at the end of their lives. People’s preferences around end-of-life care were recorded and acted on.