Dresden House 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 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 did not always ensure people were at the centre of their care and support, as opportunities for meaningful engagement were limited and people’s individual preferences were not consistently promoted.

Four people we spoke with told us there were few activities available. One person said, “Activities? No, nothing really,” and another told us, “I sometimes read a book.” We observed people sitting for long periods with little or no interaction. Although the provider sent an activity schedule following the inspection, including a pancake day event, these activities were not observed to have taken place. A staff member told us, “There’s an activities person on every day 9 until 2, but they help with breakfast, so activities start about 10.30am to lunch, nothing after two pm. We need more activities really; there’s not a lot going on.”

People had individual care plans which were regularly reviewed, and care was delivered in line with people’s assessed needs. People and their relatives were involved in planning their care. Staff knew people well, including their likes and dislikes, and we observed staff communicating in ways that met people’s needs.

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.

People’s cultural support needs, including their dietary choices and religious preferences were recorded in their care plans and these plans outlined how staff should support people in line with these needs and preferences. The staff team was consistent, which helped people know who was supporting them and promoted continuity of care.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The provider did not always have regard to the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). During the inspection we did not see pictorial guides, easy‑read materials or other communication aids which would help people with different communication needs access information in ways suited to them. This meant some people may not have fully understood their care, choices or key information, increasing the risk of unmet communication needs.

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.

Regular resident meetings were held to give people the opportunity to discuss what was working well and what could be improved, and staff meetings helped ensure updates were shared consistently across the team. People were kept involved in decisions about their care through routine reviews, and relatives were updated regularly so they remained informed and engaged.

The provider had a complaints procedure, and we saw examples of how the registered manager had followed the procedure following a complaint.

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

Staff monitored people’s wellbeing closely and acted quickly when changes were identified, seeking timely input from healthcare professionals to ensure concerns were addressed. People were supported to attend appointments, follow-up visits were arranged, and staff worked with external services to make sure treatment and interventions were coordinated 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.

Information about people’s communication needs, cultural preferences, health conditions and any other factors that might increase the risk of inequality was gathered through initial assessments, regular reviews and ongoing conversations with people and their relatives. Staff also used insights shared by health and social care professionals and observations of people’s day‑to‑day experiences. Staff meetings, handovers and feedback helped identify individuals who might need additional support. This range of information enabled staff to tailor care to each person’s circumstances.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, including decisions about their future and their end of life wishes.

Some people did not have detailed end of life care plans in place, meaning staff did not always have clear guidance about what was most important to them if their health deteriorated. We discussed this with the registered manager, who acknowledged more detailed information would help staff provide care that reflected people’s preferences. They also explained that many people move from the service as they approach the end of their life because they require nursing care. However, having clear and personalised end of life plans would still benefit both people and staff, ensuring that if someone’s health declined quickly, their wishes would be known and respected.