Ernest Bold Resource Centre

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 was rated 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 were at the centre of all the care they received. We saw people were encouraged to be in control of their life. People were supported to learn and develop new skills during their stays at the service that were relevant to and could be used in their everyday lives.

Without exception, care plans and risk assessments were individualised and detailed. They were specific to the people’s individual needs, considered their history, preferences, likes and dislikes and ensured all aspects of care and support were considered. Care planning involved people and those who were important to them and promoted their choices.

Staff worked with the people and their families in a person-centred way to ensure everything was individual to each person, including how their time at the unit was planned, utilised and implemented, to the activities they participated in and the new opportunities they experienced.

Staff acted as advocates for people and ensured they were involved with their care. When needed, they would step in and take the lead on situations to ensure positive outcomes were achieved for people, when sometimes in their remit as a respite service this was not necessarily their role. Staff knew people exceptionally well and could demonstrate an understanding of each person they spoke about. They were able to tell us their likes and dislikes and what was important to each 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.

People had access to a whole range of professionals, including; learning disability nurses, speech and language therapists, GP’s and dentists. Where needed the provider led on making referrals to professionals. Staff were able to give examples of how they worked with a variety of different professionals to develop individual plans of care for people.

There were systems and processes in place to ensure people’s care was regularly reviewed and updated, this included planned reviews or when changes occurred. The provider ensured there were systems in place to share this information or changes with staff so people could receive consistent care.

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

People and relatives were happy with how information was provided to them.

People had individual care plans in place which considered how they communicated, the support they may need and any communication aids that they used. People used a variety of communication methods which staff were aware of and trained to use. Information was displayed in various formats for people around the service and in their files, including pictorial menus and easy read versions of procedures. One of the walls in the home had been adapted into a communication wall which displayed large, framed pictures of Makaton symbols. These could be used to aid people to communicate or as a prompt for staff. Makaton is a language programme that uses speech, signs and symbols for people with learning and communication difficulties.

The provider shared that information was available to people in different formats if they required this.

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.

People and relatives felt listened to and involved with their care. One relative told us, “There are annual reviews. we discuss any changes but can do that at any point.”

Feeback was sought from people and relatives regularly, either through meetings or surveys. The registered manager had identified that although feedback was positive, the response rate for these surveys was ‘poor’. Therefore they were working with people, families and staff to initiate more innovate ways to ensure people could feedback about their care and that they were listed to. We have reported on this under Learning, improvement and innovation.

There was a system in place to ensure complaints were responded to in line with the providers own policy and procedure.

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

There were processes in place that the registered manager could consider if concerns arose. They had links with external agencies that they could engage with to raise concerns if needed.

Staff and leaders were innovative in how they listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. Staff and leaders actively used this information to provide exceptionally tailored care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff considered any inequalities that people using the service may face. They tailored each person’s care to consider barriers they may face to ensure positive outcomes.

Staff had received training in equality and were able to demonstrate the action they would take if people they supported experienced discrimination or inequalities. Staff felt confident to challenge such concerns.

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.

The registered manager confirmed they were not supporting anyone who was currently receiving end of life care; however, they were aware of action to take if needed. They told us they would consider people’s preferences at this time and discussed it with people and families as part of their reviews where appropriate.