Salthouse Road

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

This means we looked for evidence 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 make sure people were at the centre of their care choices and they did not always work in partnership with people. Records did not support the provision of person-centred care.

Further development was required to ensure people were included in discussions about their care, to help identify what was important to them and to understand their experience. Records and information were not always accurate and up to date about a person’s needs or preferences. We received mixed feedback from relatives about the communication they received; with some noting this was excellent whilst others felt it was an area for improvement.

However, the relevant people were involved in significant decisions about people's care. One professional described the service as, "Very person-centred."

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 home worked in partnership with health and social care agencies to support people's changing needs. Professional advice was followed to ensure continuity for people. People were encouraged and supported to take part in community-based activities and maintain relationships that were important to them.

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

Staff understood how people communicated. A relative told us, "The staff know who [person's name] is; what they like, they look out for their privacy and dignity, how to communicate, and they communicate well with them. They appreciate what they are saying by the body language." Information was recorded about people's communication needs but was not always updated to guide staff when there were changes. Information was available for people in different formats, including Easy Read.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas. Records did not reflect people’s involvement in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result. The provider had received feedback from relatives, stakeholders and people who used the service. However, this information was not used to evaluate and improve the service. The provider was aware meetings had not been held for people and their relatives to seek feedback, and these remained outstanding at the time of our visit.

A complaints policy was in place and complaints were responded to. If people had concerns, they felt confident in raising these with the registered manager.

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

Staff, professionals and relatives were aware they could contact the registered manager with concerns. People could access health services without delay and staff worked alongside professionals. Adaptations had been made to ensure the space was accessible for people.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information from people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support in response to this.

The staff actively challenged discrimination and advocated for people if they felt they were being treated unfairly. Staff completed training in equality and diversity, and the registered manager was passionate about ensuring people had a good quality of life.

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.

Staff had not received training to provide safe and effective care for people at the end of their life. The service lacked information to guide people with planning for this stage of their lives.