Sotwell Hill 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 ensured people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and worked in partnership with them to respond to changes in their needs.

People were consulted and involved in decisions about their care. People told us they were involved in decisions about their care and felt their preferences were respected. One person said, “They have asked me if I want a female or male carer, but I don’t have any concerns who it is.” Another person told us, “I’m happy with my care plan. I get the care I want here. They [staff] are all very good and they will talk about my care and if I’m happy with things.”

Care was delivered in a way that respected people’s dignity and supported their independence. People described how staff supported them in a respectful and flexible way during personal care. One person told us, “I shower myself and sometimes carers help me to have a bath. Staff are very good when I am having a bath – ever so nice. When I am showering, staff are with me.”

Care plans contained some good information about the support people required, their likes and dislikes to understand people’s individual needs, including respecting their faith and personal preferences. This supported staff to deliver care in a personalised and meaningful way.

The provider demonstrated a clear understanding of the diverse health and care needs of people and the local community. Care was delivered in a joined‑up and flexible way that supported people’s choice, continuity and overall wellbeing.

The service worked effectively with a range of healthcare professionals to ensure people received coordinated and appropriate support. This helped to promote positive outcomes and ensured people’s health needs were met in a timely way, however documentation did not always clearly evidence the proactive steps the service had taken.

The service worked proactively with external professionals to meet people’s individual needs and respond to changes in their health. During our inspection, we observed a GP and district nurses visiting the service, which demonstrated regular access to primary healthcare support. Care records contained information about referrals to a range of specialist services, including the falls team, speech and language therapists and hospice care.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up‑to‑date information in formats that were tailored to meet people’s individual needs and were involved in decisions about their care. Improvements to the consistency of recording would further strengthen the provider’s approach.

People told us they were involved in discussions about their care and were supported to receive information in a way they could understand. One person said, “I’m happy with the care; [key worker] goes through it with me, asking lots of questions.” People’s care was reviewed regularly with their key worker, using a structured approach to discuss ongoing needs and preferences. This supported people to be actively involved in decisions about their care.

People were supported to make everyday choices, including around meals. Menus were displayed, and people told us they were offered options reflecting their preferences and supported choice.

Information about people’s communication needs was available, and staff demonstrated consistent approaches in practice to ensure people were understood and able to express their views. This supported effective communication and person‑centred interactions.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback, raise concerns or make complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and explained changes made as a result of their feedback.

People told us they were regularly asked for their views. One person said, “They have asked me, usually every day whether I’m happy with things.”

People were involved in monthly reviews of their care plans, providing opportunities for people to share comments and suggestions. This supported people to feel involved and have their voices heard.

Care discussions regularly took place between people and their key workers, using a structured approach to review care and identify any changes needed.

Residents’ meetings were held and included family members, which gave further opportunities for feedback to be shared. Feedback from these meetings was collected and used to inform aspects of the service. However, meetings were not always held regularly, which meant there were fewer structured opportunities for people and their families to contribute their views. The provider told us they had plans to ensure these meetings were held more frequently.

The provider ensured people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when required. The environment supported people’s independence and enabled them to move safely around the service.

Communal areas, including the garden, were accessible for people with reduced mobility or cognitive impairments. This supported people to spend time in different areas of the home and maintain independence in a safe and comfortable environment.

People’s rooms were well maintained and benefitted from good natural light, views of the surrounding environment and accessible en‑suite facilities.

The environment included memorabilia and artwork to support orientation for people living with mild cognitive impairment. Some visual prompts were in place, including images on doors to indicate room function, which supported people to navigate the service. However, this was not consistently applied throughout the home. As a result, opportunities to further support people living with cognitive impairments to orientate themselves independently were not always fully maximised. The provider told us they would review signage throughout the home.

Staff and leaders demonstrated an understanding of the importance of equality, diversity and inclusion, and took steps to ensure people who may be at risk of inequality in experience or outcomes were supported appropriately.

People told us they felt they were treated fairly and without discrimination. One person said, “They treat me fairly, no favourites here,” and “They [carers] treat me very fairly.”

People felt confident raising concerns and leaders promoted a culture of respect and openness. One person said, “The manager is excellent. They’d say if you have any problems with staff being disrespectful you must tell us because we don’t want anything like that. That makes you feel it is well managed.”

The provider demonstrated an awareness of equality and human rights responsibilities. They took account of people’s individual needs and protected characteristics and made reasonable adjustments where required to support inclusion.

Staff had completed training in equality and diversity, which supported their understanding of how to provide inclusive care. The workforce was diverse, which further reflected an inclusive culture within the service.

The provider supported people to plan for important life changes, enabling them to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Care planning included clear and detailed information about people’s wishes, preferences and future decisions. This included discussions around end‑of‑life care and funeral arrangements, which had been sensitively recorded where appropriate. This demonstrated people were supported to consider and communicate what mattered to them, and these preferences were respected and documented.

The service worked with relevant professionals to ensure people received appropriate support at the right time. Referrals had been made to specialist services, including hospice care, to provide additional guidance and support with end‑of‑life care. Anticipatory medicines and care plans were in place, which supported staff to manage people’s needs effectively and respond promptly to changes in their condition.