Hayes Court

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 68 (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 choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Most people had care plans in place outlining how people wished to be cared for and what support staff were to provide. However, we found that for one person who was in the service for respite care, they did not have any care plans in place. Meaning there was a risk that staff would not know how to provide care to meet people’s needs and ensure their wishes and preferences were respected. This showed that person‑centred approaches were not consistently embedded for everyone. The manager apologised for the oversight and told us they would ensure a care plan was implemented.

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’s health and care needs were generally well understood by staff. We observed staff supporting people at their own pace during mealtimes, providing reassurance and adapting support where needed. Records and feedback showed people had access to healthcare professionals, including GPs and specialist services. Staff worked with these professionals to manage risks, nutrition and long‑term conditions.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The provider did not always make sure people received clear, accessible and timely information to support their involvement in care and decision making. People and relatives generally told us staff explained things in a way they could understand and communication with staff was mostly positive. However, the provider did not have a clear policy or consistent approach to meeting the Accessible Information Standard. Information was largely shared verbally, and alternative formats were not routinely available. Leaders acknowledged this was an area they needed to improve. This meant that while some people received information in ways that worked for them, others may not have had equal access to information tailored to their communication needs.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People and relatives told us they felt able to speak to staff and raise concerns. Most said staff were approachable and would listen if they were unhappy. One person said, “they listen”, and relatives described having good relationships with staff and managers.

The provider used satisfaction surveys, compliment cards and complaints analysis to gather feedback and identify learning. Leaders were able to explain how previous concerns, such as laundry, had been addressed and improvements made.

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

The provider made sure people had fair access to the service based on their needs. Leaders described a clear and structured referral and assessment process. Referrals were considered in a non‑judgemental way, and decisions were based on whether the service could safely meet people’s needs. Staff involved people and families early in the process and arranged visits before admission.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care and support in response to this.

Most people and relatives reported positive experiences and felt care was kind, respectful and safe. Staff supported people and took account of their individual needs to ensure people had equity in experiences and outcomes. This included supporting people in line with their protected characteristics as defined by the Equality Act 2010.

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.

Many people had advance care plans and records showed families were involved in discussions about end-of-life care where appropriate. Relatives confirmed that conversations about future care had started or were ongoing. Leaders reviewed information to ensure people were supported to die in their preferred place.