White Rose 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 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. Care plans showed that each person was at the centre of their care plan. Care records showed each person’s needs and strengths as well as the support they needed. Care plans reflected peoples physical, mental, emotional and social needs. Care plans and risk assessments were reviewed regularly and records confirmed this. Where changes were required, the registered manager took prompt action to update care arrangements, including ensuring people had appropriate equipment in place such as adjustable beds, bed rails and sensor mats. The registered manager told us, “Trusting relationships are built between staff and service users and people are promoted to speak freely about their care.”

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 provided coordinated, person-centred care within the home which promoted continuity of support. They shared information effectively during handovers and through care records, which ensured people received consistent support from familiar staff who understood their routines and preferences. Staff worked closely with families and visiting health professionals to respond to changes in peoples’ needs. For example, when people’s health deteriorated, staff liaised with the GP and district nurses, updated the care plan promptly, and adjusted daily support to meet people’s changing needs. People and relatives told us communication between staff felt positive and staff were responsive in meeting the needs of the people living at the service. A relative commented, “I have good contact with them [staff], they have done everything they can for [family member]."

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People’s communication needs were documented within their care records, so staff could tailor providing information to people in a responsive way. For example, the service arranged for a staff member to accompany a person to hospital appointments who spoke their language. This ensured the person was fully supported and involved in their health and support. Communication risk assessments were completed upon people’s admission, which enabled care staff to have personalised information about people’s preferences for communication and the formats in which they require written information to be provided.

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. Staff listened to people and actively involved them in decisions about their care and daily lives. The service encouraged people to share their views during day-to-day conversations and at meetings. We saw evidence information raised at these meetings was acted upon in a timely manner. The management team had an open-door policy for people to discuss any concerns and made time throughout the day to visit people and have conversations. A person told us, “I do know who the registered manager is and they are very approachable.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Care plans considered people’s needs, and what reasonable adjustments could be made to ensure people accessed their care and support 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. People’s support was personalised; staff knew individual’s needs well and protected people’s rights and removed barriers where they were able. People and relatives told us staff treated everyone fairly and responded consistently to individual needs, demonstrating equity in both experiences and outcomes.

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. Some end-of-life care plans required further detail, however, most of the people living at the service were not yet ready for discussing these sensitive areas of their care. The service understood how to approach these conversations and respect people’s wishes and preferences when the time was appropriate.