Friars Mead

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’s records were personalised to include physical, mental and social care needs.

People told us staff knew their likes and dislikes well. We saw people’s rooms were personalised with their own possessions.

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 had input from the GP via weekly phone calls about each person.

People we spoke with confirmed other professionals visited the home including the chiropodist, optician and district nurses. A relative said, “Staff frequently discuss [person’s] medical needs and have helped with telephone consultations and arranging doctor referrals/visits when required.” A person said, “If you want to talk to the doctor, they will organise that for you.”

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

People’s communication needs were included in their care plans. They stated whether people were able to communicate verbally and any sensory needs, such as wearing hearing aids or glasses.

We saw some information on noticeboards in accessible formats. Most signage was written text with only some in picture format. However, we did not identify anyone who appeared to need this.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

The provider had a complaints procedure. None of the people we spoke with had needed to make a complaint, but they told us they would tell the manager if they were concerned. A person said, “[Manager] is good at listening if there are any problems. We have residents’ meetings.”

We reviewed resident meeting minutes and saw people had opportunities to raise issues in the home. However, where actions were identified it was not clear how these were addressed/followed up.

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

People had call bells in their rooms to alert staff if they needed help. The premises were fully accessible with lift access to all floors.

The provider had policies to ensure consideration of the needs of people with protected characteristics.

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. For example, activities staff ensured they interacted with people who were not able or did not want to join in with a group activity.

A professional told us, “Adjustments are made for activities, disability needs and other special needs as applicable.”

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 received training in end-of-life care.

People’s care records included information about their wishes at the end of their life. A relative told us, “The GP suggested making an end-of-life plan. We had a meeting with the GP and the home and all agreed that [person] should not go to hospital.”