Symonds House

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.

Staff and the management team were committed to ensuring peoples preference and care needs were being met. One person told us, “It is my decision regarding what time I get up and go to bed.” Another person said, “I feel that I have a good input into my care. We do talk about it and if I want to do something different to their idea, they will let me do it because it is my decision.” A relative said, “The staff have a positive attitude to the residents allowing them to be independent where they can be and a powering them to make their choice when they can.”

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 benefitted from partnership working with commissioners, GPs and health professionals to ensure people’s needs were understood. A GP visited on a weekly basis to ensure people’s health needs were kept under review and people were referred to other professionals when needed. A relative told us, “The Doctor comes every week which is really good. They are popping in today to see [family member].”

Peoples’ records included information about advice provided by other professionals, and this was kept under review.

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

Since 2016 all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard. The Accessible Information Standard tells organisations what they have to do to help ensure people with a disability or sensory loss, and in some circumstances, their carers, get information in a way they can understand it. It also says that people should get the support they need in relation to communication.

Information was made available in different formats to support people’s understanding, tailored to their individual needs. An activities plan was provided in pictorial format; however, its size made it difficult for people to read and access. The registered manager confirmed they would get this addressed with the activities staff, to ensure that it was more accessible. Care plans included clear details about the support required to assist people with communication, ensuring staff could engage and respond to each person appropriately.

The provider and registered manager 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 was a procedure in place which outlined how the provider would respond to complaints. Records showed that complaints had been managed in line with the provider’s policy and resolved in a timely manner to the satisfaction of those involved.

People told us they knew who to speak with if they had any concerns. One relative said, “I would know how to complain I would go to the manager first.” Another relative said, “No complaints here and I would know how to make one.” There were mixed views on how complaints were dealt with. One person said, “I had a complaint about the laundry. The Manager solved the problem.” One relative told us, “The manager is approachable, but you do not get much feedback on a complaint maybe an email., just saying trying to improve.” Another relative said, “Did make a small complaint but waiting to hear back about it.” A third relative told us, “The manager is very approachable, and does respond to emails quickly.”

Relative and residents’ meetings were held, giving people the opportunity to speak up and raise any issues. They also used to inform us of future activities that were being planned.

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

People told us staff enabled them to access support when needed, such as by contacting their GP. Health and social care professionals visited the service when people were unable to attend appointments.

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

The provider had systems in place to identify changes in people's needs and liaised with other healthcare professionals such as the GP, speech and language team and community nursing team to ensure people had appropriate support in place when required.

People and their relatives raised no concerns related to discrimination or unequal experiences.

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 discussed with people how they wished to be supported at the end of their life. Care plans were detailed and individualised to how people wished to be supported at the end of their life. Where people had made decisions on resuscitation and funeral plans this was clearly recorded. Relatives’ views had been taken into account, and their wishes were also recorded.