New Milton 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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People had person-centred care plans which held information specific to them including preferences and how they wanted their care delivered.
Staff knew people well, they had positive interactions with them throughout our inspection and understood how best to support people. While some relatives said they were not involved, or had not been asked about care planning, all agreed, people were treated as individuals and received support as they wanted it.

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.

The provider ensured people had access to community-based services such as dentists and opticians as needed. They also considered people living in the community who may need respite and had recently developed a room in the service to provide short term respite care only, that could be booked at short notice once the person was assessed to ensure their needs could be met. This supported people to continue living independently in their own homes longer but also familiarised people with life in a care setting to hopefully enable a smooth transition should full time care be needed.

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

People had detailed communication assessments that informed care plans. These indicated the level of support needed, and actions staff should take to ensure they could both communicate and understand information given to them.

A person’s communication plan noted they needed both hearing aids and spectacles cleaned and maintained to aid communication, along with additional time to respond to questions.

While at the time of our inspection, no one receiving a service from New Milton House had specific written communication requirements, the provider told us they would source information in large print or braille for example. In addition, the reception staff member spent time with people supporting them by reading letters and other information to them.

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.

The provider held regular residents’ meetings where updates about the service were shared with people, and people could raise any concerns or make comments about the service. In addition, targeted surveys were issued to people to update their information and obtain their opinions of aspects of the service.

Surveys had been completed about activities, whether there were enough, if people enjoyed them, if they were encouraged to join and what else they might like to do. Other surveys asked people at the start of the summer and the start of the winter what time they wished to get up, whether they wanted to breakfast in their room and if they wanted their care to be delivered before or after breakfast.

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

The service was fully accessible and people, regardless of their mobility could access all areas. The provider had changed the use of the crafts room to a gym and had made it accessible to people using the service. All could access the gym, and a staff member was qualified to provide sessions that could support people to maintain and improve areas such as mobility.

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.

Staff completed training in equality, diversity and human rights. The service was previously called Quaker House and though it had changed the name, the values of kindness, caring, friendship and community remained. The provider supported people to access community-based services or bought services into the premises to ensure people could meet their spiritual and social needs.

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.

People had end of life care plans when they wanted them. Not everyone had one in place however this was their choice.

End of life plans recorded who people wanted to let know as they approached their death, if they had no one, if they wanted to have a befriender to support them. It also noted how the environment should be, what they wanted from their funeral and who, if anyone should perform last rites.

The plans held sufficient information however, some would benefit from more detailed information added. For example, 1 person’s plan said to play classical music in the person’s room. Knowing more specifically which piece of classical music would offer them comfort.