Holme Lea

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

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 64 (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 ensure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, and they did not consistently work in partnership with people to decide how to respond to changes in their needs.

An electronic care planning system had recently been introduced in the home, and at the time of our visit, improvements were still needed. Care plans did not always include detailed, personalised information about how people wanted to be supported by staff, and there was limited evidence that people and their families had been involved in developing these plans. However, staff generally knew people well and had a good understanding of their preferences.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, ensuring care was joined-up, flexible, and supported choice and continuity.

Staff worked closely with other services and reported good relationships with professionals. One professional commented that staff had all the information they needed before their arrival and was very complimentary about the team.

The activity coordinator supported people to access the local community where possible, and people had enjoyed a recent trip to Blackpool. However, the activity coordinator had limited availability to provide activities across the home, and their role was not covered during annual leave. One person told us: “I do the same thing day in, day out.” A relative commented: “There are some activities, but there should be more for residents to do on a one-to-one basis (hobbies). A girl comes in to sing only on a Tuesday.”

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

People’s communication needs were generally assessed and included in care planning. Staff understood these needs and how best to communicate with people. The registered manager told us they could tailor information, including providing translations and large-print formats. They also gave examples of supporting people using communication cards and boards in the past.

Newsletters were shared with people and families every month and included details about events and changes in the home.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback or raise complaints about their care, treatment, and support. Staff did not consistently involve people in decisions about their care or explain what had changed as a result.

Systems for feedback were in place, including meetings and surveys, but these were not always well supported. The registered manager gave examples of how feedback from people and staff had been used to make changes across the home. However, there was limited evidence that people and families had been involved in making decisions about their care.

The provider ensured people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff supported people to access essential services, and external professionals, including podiatrists, district nurses, and a hairdresser, visited the home. People were also supported to access the local community.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people most likely to experience inequality in care or outcomes and tailored their support and treatment accordingly. Staff understood people’s needs and took steps to ensure they received the services and support required.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, including end-of-life care, so they had enough time to make informed decisions about their future. There was limited evidence that people and families had been involved in these decisions. Where end-of-life plans were in place, they often lacked detail. We raised this with the registered manager, who addressed the issue for one individual requiring this type of support at the time of our inspection.