Highbury Rise

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.

People felt their needs were met in a way they liked. A person told us, “It’s good here, I have what I need.” Most relatives told us they were happy with the care provided. A relative said, “I have always felt that [person] is well supported.”

We spoke with staff, and they were knowledgeable about people and the support they required.

Care and support were provided when needed. People looked well dressed, comfortable and in accordance with their preferences. However, we did see some people who needed to have their nails cleaned. A relative had also told us at times they needed to clean their family members hands when visiting.

Care was delivered in a way that catered to individuals. Some people were cared for in bed or went to their rooms for a rest. Staff were seen going to check on them regularly to see if they needed anything.

Care plans were personalised and ensure they captured people’s needs, wishes and preferences. These were reviewed regularly.

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 with varied care needs were living at the service. Staff worked with visiting health and social care professionals to ensure this support met their needs. A relative told us, “Being in the home [person] has better access to a GP than they would likely have in the community, they were also treated as part of the hospital at home initiative when they had flu at the beginning of this year.”

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

People told us they had access to information as they needed it. Relatives were also positive about communication from the home. A relative said, “There has been a fairly recent change of management, and [registered manager] held a meeting for families to meet him and share thoughts on the home.”

Information was readily available and provided through meetings and handovers. Information could also be provided in different formats where needed. This was displayed for people’s awareness.

There were resident and relative meetings. Relatives were also in contact with staff as part of people’s care plan development and reviews but also events and activities at the home.

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 told us they felt they could speak up or make a complaint if they needed to. Relatives told us they were involved and listened to. A relative said, “I am given surveys on a regular basis to feedback but would be happy to contact the home in between if I had and questions or concerns.”

Complaints and grumbles were investigated, with an outcome recorded.

Staff told us people were able to speak up and had opportunities to share their views.

We saw there was a record of residents’ meetings. These covered subjects including meals and activities. Records captured people’s voice and actions needed.

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

People and relatives told us they received the care, support and medical support when needed.

The management team had systems in place in the home which helped ensure they had an overview of care and support people received. For example, to help ensure access to health and support services, care and social engagement and activities, were available to everyone.

There were systems in place to ensure people had access to external health and social care professionals, including out of hours or in an emergency.

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 with a variety of needs, backgrounds and cultures were supported by the home. They told us they felt supported.

Staff told us they were confident people were treated equally and as individuals.

The provider had policies in place to ensure people were treated equally. There were opportunities for people to give feedback about their care and support.

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 they wanted, people had discussed their preferences about their end-of-life care with staff.

Care plans included end of life care plans. There was a record of any Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR). The approach was supported by a visiting health professional to ensure care would be tailored to individual wishes and needs.

Staff were aware of people’s end of life wishes and care needs, such as choosing to remain at Highbury Rise.