Priority Care 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 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 were supported to receive care that was person centred, and staff followed care plans which detailed people’s needs, likes 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.

The service worked well with the local community to understand people’s diverse needs. People were supported with halal or vegetarian options to meet people’s cultural or religious needs. The provider also worked closely with day services and primary schools, who visited the service regularly. People would also visit the school for events or school plays.

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

People were supported to have a range of accessible information to meet accessible information standards (AIS). The service had dementia friendly signage in place, which supported people to orientate throughout the environment, including to support access to their bedrooms. The service used a range of innovative tools to support with orientation, for example, specific paintings and wall colours were considered to support orientation. The dining area had large lit photos depicting food, so people knew where the dining area was. There were photos of food available on people’s tables, with specific photos for the meals available that day. People and relatives also had access to staff profiles in communal areas, so they knew which staff were supporting them. Staff boards and uniforms were also colour coded, so people knew which staff were supporting them, for example, a carer or activity co-ordinator. People were provided relevant information, such as safeguarding and complaints signposting. People we spoke with agreed, and one relative told us, “There was so much to take in I took it [information] home and went through it in my own time. I do recall information about complaints and how to report anything I was unhappy about”.

The provider enabled 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.

The service listened to and involved people in their care. People, relatives and staff were offered surveys on a regular basis. Visitors and professionals could also complete electronic surveys on leaving the building. People were actively involved in care planning and reviews, and decisions were made which were important to them. There were regular staff and residents’ meetings, which discussed any areas of change or improvement required. These changes were then implemented, for example, food menus were changed to suit residents needs following feedback. There were also "you said we did” and above and beyond care plans in place. Relatives were spoke with agreed they were involved in care planning and providing feedback. One relative advised us their views were considered and implemented when their relative required specific medical care.

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

The service ensured supporting people who may be at increased risk of inequality to have equal access to appropriate services. The service implemented various health visits for people, such as sight tests, oral care and chiropodists, as well as a weekly visit from the GP visit. The service also implemented a counselling visit which came into the service frequently, to offer residents counselling.

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 were supported to have access to positive outcomes and experiences. For example, people’s specific needs, likes and preferences, including cultural and religious, were documented in their care plans. A local vicar visited the service regularly to support religious needs. The service also supported different activities, such as animals like ponies and llamas visiting, to support people’s wellbeing. The service also arranged regular trips out to local attractions. The service implemented other activities to support dignity and wellbeing, such as hairdressers, barbers and manicures.

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.

People and relatives were given opportunity to discuss their wishes and preferences regarding important life decisions, including at the end of their lives. Staff had completed end of life training. People and relatives confirmed they had been given opportunity to discuss their wishes.