Hoyland Hall Residential Home

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 changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.

This service scored 50 (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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. People's care plans and risk assessments did not always record people’s personal preferences. There was minimal information about what people enjoyed doing with their time and what was important to them. During our inspection we observed elements of institutional practice which compromised the delivery of person-centred care. Some routines were task focused rather than being based on people’s individual preferences and choices.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. Systems and processes in place did not always ensure continuity of care and support.This resulted in care which was not always co-ordinated or responsive to people’s need.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Information about the service was available in the main entrance to the home but this was not routinely accessed by people who lived at the home. For example, visitors to the home had access to the complaints procedure but people living at the home could not easily access it.Information people had access to, such as the daily menu, was not presented in a way that met the needs of people living with dementia. For example, the menu presented in written format reflected the choices on offer, but the picture menu contradicted this. People were not offered show plates to help them decide what meal they preferred. However, staff showed understanding about how to communicate effectively with people. One staff member said, “We have had residents that have struggled with speech and have used hand gesture to communicate needs and boards with pictures of certain needs they can point to communicate needs.”

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result. The provider had a complaints procedure, and we saw some previous complaints had been followed up in line with the provider’s policy. There were no recent complaints recorded. There were missed opportunities to gain people’s feedback and people were not always involved in care plan reviews.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The door to the garden area was kept locked, and the key was hard to find. This limited people’s access to outside space. There was no evidence that discussions had been held with people or risk assessments completed. This meant this restriction had not been properly assessed. We found lots of locked doors throughout the home which limited people’s freedom of movement. There was no evidence discussions had taken place or least restrictive options explored where safe to do so.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. Staff and leaders had not always considered or implemented relevant best practice guidance for providing a dementia friendly care environment. For example, people who preferred not to take part in social activities, were left without the company of staff. This resulted in people becoming bored and falling asleep. Signage around the service was in place to help people navigate around the home.

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 were knowledgeable about end-of-life care and told us they would ensure people and their relatives were supported in a compassionate way.