Quarry Mount

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.

This service scored 68 (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 and treatment choices.

We observed one person with a learning disability was not provided with person-centred care in line with Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture.

We observed 1 staff member changing the TV channel without consulting with people in a communal area. One person commented, “I want to watch what I want to watch, this isn’t my choice.”

However, people were asked about their preferences in resident meetings, and these were accommodated where possible. People had information about their backgrounds, likes and interests in their care plans.

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.

One professional told us, “From my knowledge transitions between services, including hospital admissions and discharges are generally managed well, with relevant information shared promptly to support continuity and safety of care.” There was a longstanding staff team, including the manager, which enabled continuity of care.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People’s communication needs were not always met. For example, we observed some staff communicating with a person in a way which was not in line with their needs. For example, the person’s care plan stated staff should use pen and paper to communicate, however we did not see this used at all during our inspection and observed staff speaking in the person’s ear instead. This meant the person could not understand what staff were saying and we observed family had to support.

However, other people had clear information in their care plans about how best to communicate with them. Staff had received training in effective communication.

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’s views were sought in relation to their care. For example, there were regular resident meetings which took place. One staff member commented, “We get good feedback, I ask a lot of questions without prompting.” We saw some items had been added to the menu as a result of the feedback shared by people.

Leaders maintained a log of compliments and complaints. We saw complaints had been responded to appropriately.

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

People had access to healthcare systems. Daily records demonstrated people received regular health checks and appointments. One professional commented, “They communicate changes in [people’s] conditions promptly and appropriately, they have no issues with ringing the GP surgery or 111 out of hours to escalate care if needed, or 999 if the situation is appropriate. This ensures timely clinical assessment and intervention.”

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 had completed training in equality, diversity and inclusion. People’s care plans showed regard to their protected characteristics. The manager told us, “We liaise with district nurses and Occupational Therapists to ensure that any equipment that is required is in place as soon as possible for the comfort and safety of our residents. We admitted an elderly resident with a learning disability and all our staff completed [nationally recognised] training in order to meet the resident’s needs. We have taken several steps to ensure that the needs of people with protected characteristics are fully met. We also recognise and support the spiritual, cultural and religious needs of our residents.”

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 clear information in their care plans about their end of life wishes. Staff had completed training in end-of-life care.