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 changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.
The service was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to person-centred care. Improvements were found at this assessment and the service was no longer in breach of this regulation.
 

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Some records, including medicines information, were generic rather than tailored to individuals, and staff did not always encourage people to do tasks they could complete themselves. As a result, people were not always fully at the centre of their care and treatment choices, nor consistently supported to make decisions in partnership with staff. We discussed this with the provider who told us they had also identified this. They had an action plan to address this; we will check for improvements at our next inspection. However, people were supported to make some person centred choices, such as deciding where they wished to go out in the community and were involved in aspects of their care planning.

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. For example, people now received their one-to-one support they were funded for, and this was routinely monitored.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Where people used signs or expressions to communicate, staff understood and knew people well.

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. For example, a recent survey had been provided to people and their relatives, one theme from this was the availability of in-house activities. The provider was responsive to this feedback and was in the process of creating an activities based staff role in-house.

At our last inspection we found the provider had not ensured people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. One person had been unable to use the shower despite expressing how important this was to them.
At this inspection, we found improvements had been made. The bathroom had been fully refitted to ensure it was accessible, enabling the person to shower safely and in line with their preferences. This meant their needs were now met, and they could continue with an important part of their daily routine.
 

Staff and leaders actively listened to 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. People were supported with their one-to-one hours. This was routinely monitored. The registered manager was working with the local authority to secure additional funding where people would benefit from this.

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. For example, where people we happy to discuss their end of life plans, this was clearly documented in care records.