Redcourt

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 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 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.

Staff and leaders knew people well and understood their routines and preferences. Records contained person-centred information which helped staff to understand people’s likes and dislikes. We observed this support being provided. For example, one person’s care plan stated they liked the feeling of motion, so staff were keeping them moving. Another person’s favourite drink was made for them.

People had control over their daily routines, choosing how they wished to spend their time. The environment was also maintained in a way that reflected people’s needs and personalities.

Feedback was positive, one person agreed that a staff member knew them well. A relative shared, “They know [person] well, they are non- verbal, you have to know from face or body language or the noises [person] makes for example, if they are complaining, the staff know this.”

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 received the appropriate support from relevant services as required. The provider ensured people had the right funding, and the right professionals involved in their care.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The provider supported people in line with the Accessible Information Standard (AIS) and relevant policies were in place to support this. Information was available in a range of formats, such as easy read or large print. People’s communication needs had been assessed, and these were understood by staff. Staff interacted with people in a way they could understand.

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.

There was a lack of formal process in place to actively obtain and act on feedback. For example, no recent surveys had been completed. This meant it was not clear how the views of those using the service were used to make improvements to service delivery.

However, relatives and staff confirmed they felt able to share their views with the registered manager and felt confident they would be listened to if they raised concerns. One relative shared, “I don’t think I’ve been asked to do anything for feedback, just the care reviews but I would speak to [registered manager] they are very receptive, they don’t ignore you, it’s never gone beyond having to make it formal.” Some resident meetings had been held, but records showed these primarily discussed activities.

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

The registered manager spoke openly and honestly about the challenges people faced in accessing appropriate local health services. They were a strong advocate for people using the service and demonstrated persistence in challenging and influencing other professionals to ensure individuals received the support they needed. This was particularly evident where gaps existed between services, such as people with both learning disabilities and dementia, where eligibility criteria could create barriers to accessing specialist support.

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. Relevant policies and procedures were in place to ensure compliance with legal equality and human rights requirements. We found no evidence of discrimination, and staff had regard to the needs of those with different protected characteristics, such as disability, age and gender.

People had not been supported to have conversations about how they wished to be cared for should their health deteriorate, or they approach the end of their lives. The service supported an aging population, however changes in needs and future care planning had not been proactively discussed with people.This increased the risk of people’s future care and support not reflecting what was important to them. The provider assured us these discussions would be held going forward.