Letheringsett Hall

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

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 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 and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. For example, further work was needed to ensure care plans were accurate, up to date, and developed with people’s meaningful involvement. However, feedback from relatives was positive in relation to contacting healthcare professionals where necessary. One relative said, “The home deal with everything. After [family member’s] recent fall (family member) went to hospital and got checked over and came back the following day.”

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. As care plans and risk assessments were not fully reviewed or kept current, we could not be confident that people received consistent and appropriate care. Whilst monitoring systems existed, it did not always operate effectively.

The provider supplied appropriate information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People and their relatives told us they were happy with how information was shared with them. The provider told us information could be made available in different formats if people required this. Staff confirmed they were aware of each person’s preferred communication methods.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Relatives knew how to complain and although they said they had not had any reason to so far, they were all very confident they would feel comfortable doing so. People and relatives were also given opportunities to share feedback about their care through surveys. However, these had not been offered regularly with some dating back to 2024.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff and management worked alongside external professionals to ensure people had equal access to healthcare services.

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. The provider had an equality, diversity and inclusion policy in place to help ensure people were not treated unfairly based on their protected characteristics. Staff received training in this area, which supported them to recognise potential issues and uphold people’s rights. One relative told us, “The home manages everything. If anything is wrong, they call the doctor. The doctor will talk to me about what is going on. [Family member] hasn’t ever needed to go to hospital.”

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. Care plans contained details about people’s wishes. Where people were unable to provide this information, the provider sought views from relatives to contribute to the care plan. One relative said, “They discuss [family member] care with me, and [family member] has improved since [family member] has lived here.”