Halmer Court

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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.

Care records were difficult to access and did not contain clear, person-centred information. In some cases, the information conflicted, and there was no evidence that people were involved in writing their own care plans. The new manager had recognised this and put plans in place to rewrite the care plans, involving people and their families in the process. One updated care plan was reviewed and showed a much better format. The new format made it easier for staff to find the right information quickly and understand what care and support each person needed.

Plans were in place to start using a tool to help staff better understand each person’s preferences and needs. The provider’s dementia lead was working with the new manager to explore how the home could deliver more person-centred care. People told us they were happy with the care received. Comments included, “It’s very good here, I don’t need much help but it’s there if needed,” and “The staff are brilliant. I need help with washing and dressing, I get a choice of bath or shower.”

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.

The service supported people with a range of health and social care needs, including dementia and physical health conditions. There was evidence of collaboration with external professionals such as district nurses, GPs, and end-of-life care providers. Staff understood the importance of working with families and a whole-home approach encouraged involvement from all departments.

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

The service met key aspects of the Accessible Information Standard. Systems were in place to support people in accessing their mail when needed, and staff were supportive of individuals whose first language was not English. This helped improve communication and reduced barriers to understanding and expressing needs.

The new manager had recognised the importance of accessible communication and took steps to ensure people’s individual needs were identified, recorded, and shared appropriately. Staff made reasonable adjustments for people with disabilities and sensory impairments, including offering translation and interpretation support where required.

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.

The service had taken steps to improve how people were listened to and involved in their care. Residents’ and relatives’ meetings were put in place, creating opportunities for people to share their views and contribute to decisions about the service. People told us they were happy to raise concerns. A person told us, “I’d be happy to talk to any member of staff if I was troubled by something.” Complaints were investigated and responded to, showing that feedback was taken seriously and acted upon.

The new manager had started involving people and their families in the development of care plans, helping to ensure that care was more personalised and reflective of individual needs. These actions supported a more inclusive approach and helped build trust between people using the service and staff.

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

Staff made practical adjustments to support people who might otherwise struggle to access important services. For example, one person who couldn’t open their mail was supported by staff who opened it with them and explained its contents, helping them understand and respond to healthcare appointments and other essential communications. Another person without family was asked for permission before staff opened their mail and explained what it was about, ensuring they could still access services like hospital care or benefits without being disadvantaged. These actions helped remove barriers and ensured people could engage with services in a timely and informed way.

Staff also found ways to help people understand important information when they had difficulty communicating, so they could be involved in decisions about their care.

Everyone was treated fairly, and staff made sure people’s individual needs were met so they could access the service equally.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to 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.

People were supported with the equipment they needed to move around the home as independently as possible. Staff worked to treat everyone fairly and meet individual needs, but not everyone had the same experience.

At mealtimes, some people with specific dietary needs were not offered suitable alternatives when the menu item wasn’t appropriate for them. For example, some were given just a slice of bread instead of the starter, and others were left without anything. This showed that more needed to be done to make sure everyone had equal access to good experiences and outcomes.

Staff were beginning to understand the impact of inequality and were taking steps to reduce barriers. However, further improvements were needed to make sure care was inclusive and consistent for everyone.

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.

The service worked with other health and care professionals to support people nearing the end of their lives. Medicines that might be needed in the final days were arranged in advance, so they were available quickly if required. This helped to reduce delays and supported people to remain comfortable.

Staff supported people to think about their future care needs, although these conversations usually took place only when people felt ready. This approach respected individual preferences. Respect forms were in place to support advance care planning.