Frindsbury House

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 received person centred care, specific to them as an individual. We observed kind interactions between people and staff, which were adapted for each person. For example, one person was laughing and joking with staff, sharing ‘banter’. Another person had been sitting on their own. Staff recognised this and asked if they could join them, interacting on their level. One person had been supported to have red wheels on their wheelchair to match the colour of their favourite football team.

Care plans were specific to individuals and their needs. Care plans included information on what was important to the person and how they liked to be supported. For example, 1 person’s care plan was clear on how they liked to look each day, the makeup, jewellery and clothes they took pride in wearing. Staff knew people well, and in some cases, the provider had supported multiple generations of the same family.

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 were supported by a consistent staff team who understood their needs and knew them well. Many of the staff had worked at the service for years, and some staff had supported different generations of families. Relatives told us that staff could anticipate their loves ones needs and knew them well. A relative said, “They have got staff there that have known her since she’s been there, they would know her better.” Another relative told us, “Some of the staff have been there for years, a lot of them have been there a long time.”

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

Staff worked to ensure that people had access to information in a format that was meaningful for them. This included easy read, large print and pictorial formats. People and their relatives were involved in care planning to ensure that their care plan reflected their preferences. Staff told us they understood people well and changed their approach from person to person to ensure their needs were understood. Some people benefitted from receiving information verbally, and where this was the case staff knew people well enough to interpret people’s responses.

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.

People and their relatives were given the opportunity to share their views and opinions. They told us they understood how and where to raise concerns, and communication from staff and leaders was good. There was a complaints policy and freedom to speak up information throughout the home on notice boards for staff to read and access. Relatives told us, “I would go to a member of staff if I had an issue, then I would go to management if it was something severe. I’ve not had to do that,” and, “If we ever have an issue, I speak to them upstairs and it’s dealt with.” A relative also told us, “The communication is about any little thing, they ring me or text me first.” There was a suggestion box in the reception area but the manager told us that it is not used frequently.

People and their relatives told us they felt confident their voice would be heard. A relative told us, “[Person’s name] would say if she’s not happy with someone, she’s still got that capacity to tell us stuff.” Residents’ meetings took place quarterly and gave people the opportunity to discuss any activities they wanted to take part in and give feedback on any other part of the service.

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

People were able to access care, treatment and support when they needed to and in a way that worked for them. This promoted equality, removed potential barriers or delays and protected their rights. This included access to the GP, dentist, physio and mental health professionals.

Frindsbury House had been adapted to meet people’s individual needs. Some people had reduced mobility and needed access for wheelchairs. The garden was well landscaped and accessible for people and their mobility aids.

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.

Leaders and staff were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage people using their services. They proactively sought out ways to address these barriers to improve people’s experience. The manager told us, “We try our best to ensure equitable experiences for everyone.” A relative told us that staff tried their best to ensure that resources were shared to ensure that everyone could experience different things. For example, a relative told us the use of the car was shared between people to ensure they could do what they wanted to do. A relative told us, “Absolutely they are treated 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.

People received person centred end of life care from staff who knew them well. People’s wishes were captured within their care plans, and staff understood what was important to people. Some families had been supported to stay at the service when the person was at the end of their life to enable the family to be there to comfort the person. A healthcare professional told us, “It’s not regular end of life care people receive, it’s very specialised care.”