The Dale 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 remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 64 (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 generally placed people at the centre of their care and treatment. People were involved in decisions about their care and staff knew people well and understood what was important to them. People’s care plans included person centred information about people’s preferences. However, these preferences were not always reflected in the care people received. One person’s care plan stated they should be supported to listen to music each day to help maintain emotional well-being and reduce the impact of low mood. During our observations, this person received task focused interactions throughout the day and were not supported to listen to music until later in the day. Records showed there had been no documented meaningful interaction or social engagement with this person during the last month, despite their care plan identifying low mood as an on-going need. The registered manager told us staff did spend time interacting with the person but acknowledged these interactions had not been recorded. Staff would be encouraged going forward to document meaningful interactions and social stimulation to demonstrate people’s social and emotional well-being was being monitored.

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 who knew people well. 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.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. We saw easy-read information was available to people and care plans referred to people’s communication needs and how these should be met. However, we did feed-back to the service that there was a lack of up-to-date information around the service, such as updates for people and visitors or any information around activities. This feedback was acknowledged by the registered manager.

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. We found limited opportunities for people using the service and their relatives to share their views about the quality of care provided. Where concerns or issues had been raised, there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that these were acted upon in a timely or appropriate manner. We found no evidence feedback was routinely sought through meetings, surveys, or other engagement methods. As a result, the provider was unable to demonstrate how the experiences of people using the service and the views of their relatives were regularly gathered, reviewed, and used to drive continuous improvement within the service.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. 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. However, we found there was a lack of dementia-friendly signage throughout the service to help people living with dementia identify key areas and navigate the environment independently.

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. 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 because, “We aim to ensure everyone has the same treatment and are treat equally.”

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, care records showed information about end-of-life care was available if needed. Where people had a DNACPR (Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation) this information was clearly documented and accessible.