Mulberry 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 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 told us they and their families were involved in any decisions about their care as well as scheduled reviews of care plans.

Care plans demonstrated a person-centred approach, reflecting people's individual needs, preferences and choices. Information was personalised throughout and detailed how people wished for their care and support to be provided.

Our observations of staff interactions with people demonstrated a person-centred approach and staff adapting the support they provided to meet each person’s individual needs and preferences.

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 regular and stable staff team who knew them well. This consistency helped ensure continuity in their care. Health professionals confirmed referrals were made promptly when required, and staff followed all advice and instructions provided. Feedback from professionals did not identify any concerns about the quality of care and support.

This consistent and responsive approach meant people received safer, more personalised care. Strong communication and follow through with health professionals helped maintain positive outcomes and confidence in the service from both individuals and external partners.

The staff training matrix showed a high level of compliance and included training relevant to the needs of people using the service, such as communication, dementia awareness and understanding distress reactions.
 

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

People’s communication needs were clearly identified, and recorded, to ensure staff had access to the appropriate information on how best to support them. For example, care records specified when individuals required spectacles or hearing aids to promote effective communication.

Notice boards displayed relevant and accessible information. This included details of the complaint’s procedure, menus, planned activities, and information about external services. This ensured people, visitors, and staff had easy access to important information, promoting transparency, awareness of available support, and opportunities to engage in activities and raise concerns confidently.

The service had a clear data protection policy. This supported the secure handling of people's personal information and ensured information was shared appropriately and in accordance with consent and legal requirements. Staff we spoke to understood the importance of data privacy and working procedures ensured this was protected. Staff said, “I have completed my GDPR training and understand the importance of keeping information confidential.”

Information was shared with people in a variety of formats to best suit their needs – this included verbally where this was most appropriate. There were regular resident meetings, which included relatives, where key information was shared.

Communication needs were well recorded in care plans to ensure information was provided in the most suitable way to each person. One person told us, “Yes, they do [provide information] and it is in a way that I can understand.”

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 said they knew how to raise a complaint and felt comfortable in approaching the management. Regular residents’ meetings were held. One person said, “We do have residents’ meetings sometimes and I do make suggestions.”

Evidence was seen that complaints were logged, investigated and resolved satisfactorily. Lessons learnt were shared with staff. The manager said, “It is always upsetting to receive a complaint, but they need to be acknowledged and everyone needs to be treated fairly. This is their [people’s] home and I want them to be happy.”

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

People were able to receive treatment they needed regardless of their individual needs. Healthcare professionals visited people at their home, but people were also supported to attend external appointments where this was needed.

All people had access to the communal lounges and garden. Those who were less mobile were supported to move around to these areas as they desired. One person said, “I am happy here. I have a key to the front door and can come and go as I please.”

Partner agencies told us they were welcomed to support people living at Mulberry Court and that the service was flexible to ensure needs were met.

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 undertook equality and diversity training to help understand how to recognise and prevent inequality. Staff we spoke to showed understanding of barriers to equal treatment and how this could be prevented. For example, by ensuring communication needs were not just recorded but also that approaches were adapted to suit individuals, promoting inclusion. We observed staff adapting their communication styles and how they responded to people, to fit best with their needs. One staff member said, “If I thought [person] was being treated unfairly, I would speak up to prevent it from happening again.”

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.

Care plans included consideration for future needs. This accounted for both improvement in conditions as well as possible declining health. People were included in this planning with their views and desired outcomes at the forefront.

End of life plans were discussed and included in scheduled care plan reviews to ensure any changes were recorded. Relevant other parties such as relatives were also involved where people consented or where they have a legal authority to make such decisions on a person’s behalf. One relative said, “I have had a discussion on not giving CPR to [relative]. It was not an easy discussion, but I was glad to be able to talk about it.”