Mulberry 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 50 (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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

At our last 2 inspections we found people's goals and interests were not being fully explored, and documentation in this area was not always completed. At this inspection, we found not enough improvement had been made.

We found examples where decisions were made on behalf of people without evidence of their involvement in the decision-making process. Care plans stated a number of activities people used to do, however there was no indication if they still enjoyed these activities or what they liked to do now. We found limited evidence people were involved in the creation and continued development of their care plans. People were not aware of care plans and their contents, one person said, “I do not know what my care plans says”. Another said, “What’s a care plan, I’ve never seen anything like that.” In relation to activities and goal setting, a relative said, “At the moment [Person] goes to a club on Mondays that’s it, goes to town shopping or gets something repaired, hit and miss sometimes”

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. For example, the provider did not always refer to other health professionals promptly to support joined up working or ensure care plans contained enough information to promote people’s health and well-being.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information. We found staff understood people’s differing communication methods well. For example, one person used a form of sign language to communicate, staff knew what these signs meant for the person.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas. For example, the provider held regular residents’ meetings where people could share ideas and make suggestions, however, where these had taken place there was no evidence to demonstrate the ideas and suggestions had been considered and implemented by the provider.

People and their relatives said they had not made any formal complaints but told us they believe the management team would address them promptly if needed.

The provider did not make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

One person’s care plan highlighted how important showering was to them. They said, “I used to have a shower, but I can’t get into it anymore and I don’t like it. I would like to have more showers I think.” The provider was not able to demonstrate discussions had been held with the person or if any alternatives had been considered, for example adapting the current facilities or relocating them to an alternative room.

Staff and leaders did not effectively review information about people to ensure they did not experience inequality in experience or outcomes. Where people were provided with one-to-one support hours, care plans did not state this was in place or the reason. We could not be assured people were receiving their dedicated support hours.

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.

People did not have clear plans for the future. Goals and aspirations were discussed, however there were limited plans in place to support people to achieve these. However, where people had end of life wishes, these were discussed and recorded in care plans.