Longley Health Care Limited

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 care and support was person centred and tailored to meet their needs. Staff knew people well and could tell us the ways in which they personalised care for each person. During the inspection, we observed some person-centred interactions taking place. However, during an observation of the lunch time experience, we found some care delivered was task-focused. This was fed-back to leaders, who advised this feedback would be shared with the team for continuous learning and development.

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. Care was delivered by a stable core team of long-serving staff. The service only relied on agency staff in certain situations. Partners told us they felt the service worked cohesively with them to meet people’s care needs. Care plans reflected support from people’s representatives or advocates and showed clear communication between health professionals, relatives and representatives. During the inspection staff were rotating their support with people at the service on an hourly basis. Although this seemed an effective method of ensuring people were supported at each time of the day and relieved staff, it was fed-back to leaders about how the service was ensuring people were getting good continuity of staff to support with activities and build trusting relationships with staff. The provider told us they had not observed any negative issues from using this staff schedule but took the feedback on board for future observations.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People’s communication needs were documented within their care records, so staff could tailor providing information to people in a responsive way. The service had information displayed in different formats. Menus were updated each day within the dining area, and these included pictures of the food people would be eating. Activities were also displayed in this format and were available for viewing in communal areas. During the inspection we were told about an online magazine for each person, where family would post photos and messages of what they have been up to. These were handed to people at the service each month.

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. There were frequent meetings for people to provide feedback on their care and support, and we saw evidence of issues raised at these meetings being resolved. Relatives told us, “Any problems they phone me. Staff always keep me informed.” And “[Relative’s] care and needs are reviewed monthly. They always keep me informed if there are any issues or concerns.” Regular resident and relative meetings took place at the service, to provide people with a safe space to feedback on how care and support was being delivered and to be kept updated on any changes. The registered manager explained their policy for dealing with complaints and showed us an example of an issue being resolved in a positive and proactive way.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. There was appropriate signage throughout the building, and sufficient equipment was in place to enable people to mobilise safely. Care plans considered people’s needs, and what reasonable adjustments could be made to ensure people could access their care and support effectively.

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’s support was personalised; staff knew individuals needs well and protected people’s rights and removed barriers where they were able to. Staff told us people received the same quality of care at the service; “We follow person-centred care plans, treat everyone with dignity and respect, and ensure individual needs are met fairly and consistently.”

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. End-of-life care planning was in place, with ReSPECT forms (where people’s wishes regarding emergency medical care are recorded when they are unable to express them in the future) and funeral arrangements documented. Wishes were considered, and staff were aware of people’s needs.