Cornelius 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 79 (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.

The provider and registered manager demonstrated a person-centred approach in all aspects of care delivery from the flexibility in the electronic system they used, through to how people’s care documents were created with people’s consistent involvement and feedback. This approach was reflected in the staff team who knew important information about the people they were supporting helping them to achieve positive outcomes for them. For example, medicines used to support people experiencing emotional distress had been prescribed but not needed to be administered due to the person cantered approach of the staff’s emotional support including how they communicated with the person. A staff member said, “It’s about the person and thinking holistically about their support, you have to understand their preferences.” Whilst another said, “Every resident is an individual, we put them at the centre of their care and get to know routines and the things that matter to them.” A person said, “I’m very independent, they don’t over support me, but they do help me with the things I need.” Care plans contained details about how people’s support levels changed at different times of the day with key differences between morning and night and gave step by step guidance for staff.

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 registered manager gathered information about people’s health and care needs during the assessment process and used this information to create care documents supporting people’s individual needs. When people needed to attend health appointments, they were supported by staff who knew them well, facilitating effective handover of information which helped health professionals to make informed decisions. This process was reinforced by providing health professionals with clear documents outlining people’s support needs.

The registered manager sought input from specialist services including GPs, dietitians and occupational therapists among others to support people when their needs changed and updated the guidance staff used to inform their support.

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

Information was provided to people in formats that complemented their needs and preferences. For example, staff explained how they supported a person with a visual impairment by reading information directly to them. People had access to their care plans which were used in reviews and relatives spoke about being given the information they needed to actively take part in people’s care reviews where appropriate. Information about planned activities was shared with people in advance in a clear format, utilising pictures alongside wording, helping people to make choices about what they took part in.

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 told us how the registered manager regularly spoke with them, asking for feedback about their care and support. This reinforced the provider’s already robust approach to gaining feedback from people, their relatives, staff and health professionals. Channels were in place in the form of surveys and questionnaires, each tailored to gain insights into people’s experiences. Residents’ meetings were taking place where people could openly suggest and discuss ideas and improvements. A person said, “We meet up and chat about things, I like hearing ideas about where to visit next.” The chef offered people meal choices, daily explaining the menu and actively sought feedback in person about the food they prepared. This gave people a direct channel to discuss their preferences and provided opportunities to make changes, meaning people received meals reflecting their current tastes. A person said, “The food is great, if I want something done a little differently it’s no problem. I didn’t used to eat as much before I moved here but now, I have my appetite back and feel much better.” The activities coordinator listened to people’s feedback during meetings and one to one discussion and used this to create an inclusive schedule.” The provider not only asked for people’s feedback, but acted on it, implementing changes where possible.

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

People were supported to have regular health and medication reviews where needed and had access to their GP. A person said, “The doctor comes every week; it’s much easier to see them now I live here.” Referrals to specialist services such as occupational therapists and speech and language therapists were made promptly in response to changes in people’s needs. Staff supported people to arrange routine health appointments including dentists, audiologists and opticians.

Staff and leaders were innovative in how they listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. Staff and leaders actively used this information to provide exceptionally tailored care, support and treatment in response to this.

A robust process of assessment with regular reviews involving people, was used by the registered manager to capture details, including protected characteristics, and created person centred guidance for staff supporting their needs whilst promoting strengths and independence. For example, care documents for people who were visually impaired contained precise information about how meals should be presented. These documents detailed the exact location of meat, vegetables, and carbohydrates. This precision helped residents experience consistency and predictability in their daily lives and promoted dignity through raised independence. Activities supporting physical and mental wellbeing were tailored to people’s individual strengths meaning everyone could participate should they want; this was reinforced by the provider’s choice in service vehicle people used for trips and activities being wheelchair accessible reducing barriers to people’s experience and promoting inclusivity.

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.

Whilst the provider was not supporting people with end-of-life care at the time of our assessment, discussions about people’s wishes and preferences had taken place and were documented. Staff had received palliative care training, demonstrating their knowledge through conversations with us. One staff member said, “We prioritise people’s comfort at this sensitive time, mouth and pressure care is very important.” A relative of a person who had recently passed away said, “The team expressed very real feelings at the end of [loved one’s] life was testament to the strong personal relationships they build with residents.”