Country 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 that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The provider did not consistently ensure care was person-centred. Whilst some care plans contained detailed, individualised information, others were generic and lacked clarity. For example, some risk assessments contained copied text and were not always reviewed regularly. There were contradictions in legal documentation, such as Lasting Power of Attorney details and consent forms were not always decision specific. People’s preferences were sometimes recorded, but the approach to writing care plans was inconsistent, with some written in the first person and others in the third person.

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.

Care provision was generally safe and staff worked hard to maintain continuity. People told us they felt safe and well cared for, and staff were observed to be compassionate and respectful. Kitchen staff demonstrated good understanding of nutritional needs and offered alternatives when required.

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

People and relatives generally felt informed and able to raise concerns. Complaints were responded to promptly, and people said they would be listened to if they needed to complain. Information about menus was displayed in both words and pictures, and staff explained choices clearly during mealtimes. However, care records did not always provide clear guidance for staff, particularly around people’s communication needs and preferences. Improvements were needed to ensure all information is accurate, up to date, and accessible to those who need it.

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 were observed engaging warmly with people, and relatives reported that staff were approachable and responsive. People said they felt safe and respected, and that staff listened to their views. Surveys and audits have been introduced to capture feedback, and some areas of concern have been acted upon. However, involvement in care planning was limited. Advocates’ contact details were missing from some records, however this was addressed immediately when raised by the inspection team. Whilst staff demonstrated a caring attitude, documentation did not consistently reflect meaningful involvement of people and their families in decisions about care.

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

People had access to services and professionals as they needed them. One person told us, “If I need to see the doctor, they (staff) organise it for me.” Staff told us they had a positive working relationship with visiting health professionals.

The provider did not always act on 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.

Most people and relatives spoke positively about the service, and staff interactions were caring and respectful. People’s protected characteristics were not reflected in care planning, however staff had a good understanding of this through experience and training.

People were not always 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.

The provider did not consistently plan for people’s future care needs, particularly around end of life care. Care records contained only basic information and lacked detail about people’s wishes, preferences, and the practical support they would need at the end of their life. For example, plans did not include guidance on preferred place of care, spiritual or cultural needs, or how staff should respond to changes in people’s condition. There was no evidence of proactive conversations with some people or their families to ensure these plans were personalised and reviewed regularly. Whilst staff were caring and committed, the absence of robust planning means people may not receive care that reflects their choices and values at this important stage of life. Improvements are needed to ensure end of life care planning is comprehensive, person-centred, and aligned with best practice.