A M Care Home 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 as Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

In addition to the points raised elsewhere in this report we found that not everyone had their needs met consistently for example 1 person who uses the service expressed needs that were not fully assessed and met, rather than approaching external services for support and advice to meet these needs that were being expressed, restrictions were placed on their electronic devices. There was no DoLS in place for this restriction, there also was no documentation to cover this, the registered manager told us that these were restrictions imposed by family of the person. This was a failure to advocate effectively for this person.
 

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. Staff worked with external professionals and made referrals for people, such as SALT, local GP services, and epilepsy community services. The health and clinical needs were captured in care plans in good detail so that staff could support people safely and consistently. There was continuity in care across services and the provider ensured as much as possible to have the same professionals involved in care for continuity.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. We saw evidence of easy-to-read versions of planners and activities.

We also saw accessible versions of resident meeting minutes, this captured in good and accessible detail the points discussed and who raised what. This was accompanied with pictures including pictures of people at the service carrying out activities and tasks that were discussed at previous meetings. This helped people see the benefits of engaging in resident meetings, sharing views with the service and keep track of their own involvement.

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

Regular resident meetings were held where people could share feedback, there were also monthly key worker sessions and assigned workers so that people at the service had a regular point of contact.

When we asked family if the provider had responded positively to any issues, they had raised comments we received back included “Yes, [registered manager] responded positively to my issue”, another family member told us, “I haven’t had to raise any concerns but am confident that if I did it would be responded to positively”.
An advocate who supports a person at the service told us “When I give suggestions and information, I can see that staff take notes. When I return staff appear quite clued up and they have [persons] case files.
 

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it. There appeared to be enough staff to care for people’s needs and preferences.

The provider had good relationships with local services to ensure that health needs could be met in line with people's needs, for example we saw evidence of the local GP service and resident paramedics engaging in regular visits to the service. This enabled people who may have difficulties accessing these services in the community access them in a more suitable and comfortable environment.

The service although encouraging the use of public transport where possible for community and health benefits also had the use of two cars, this enabled community access to services and activities where public transport would not be appropriate. The registered manager told us that they and the deputy regularly drive people to activities and appointments.
 

Staff and leaders did not always actively act on information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. In addition to the points raised in other areas of this report we found that people who had similar needs did not always receive equity in outcomes.

We found that some people at the service did not have the same level of protection or rights‑based processes in place as others. A small number of people were being supported in ways that limited their ability to move freely or access the community without staff, but the provider had not completed the assessments needed to confirm whether these restrictions were lawful or in the person’s best interests.

In contrast, other people with similar needs had clear assessments, recorded decisions, and the correct authorisations in place to support them. This meant that people did not always have an equitable experience, as some benefitted from the appropriate legal safeguards while others were supported without the same level of oversight or rights‑based protections.
 

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future. For example, 1 person at the service expressed a desire to go on holiday the following year, they are supported with their finances by a court appointed deputy at the local authority. The provider immediately supported them to put a plan together and put in all the necessary requests for funding, at the time of the assessment they were eagerly awaiting the outcome of this request.

We also saw evidence of discussions around Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) with people at the service enabling them to express their wishes for actions to be taken in the future.