120 Furber 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

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.

Staff described how they supported people in a person-centred way. People had their own routines of when they got up and went to bed and how they liked to spend their time. People’s care plans were personalised and reflected their physical, emotional, cultural and social needs.

A member of staff told us, “All information regarding the individuals that I support is made clear in their care plans, including likes and dislikes. We try and arrange activities to suit each individual and always look at the risk assessments beforehand.” Another member of staff told us, “Care plans and risk assessments are clear.” This was echoed by all staff we spoke with.

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 were supported to access the local community. The home was close to shops with good links to public transport. People told us they regularly attended a social club where they could take part in regular activities such as bowling, bingo and a disco and meet up with friends.

People had access to health provision when they needed this. This included medical services, such as a GP, dentist and opticians. People had care plans in respect of the support they needed to attend health appointments and whether any adjustments may be needed.

Where people were supported by more than one service, staff worked together to ensure the care was joined up for the person. One person was supported to attend a day care service 3 days per week. A communication book was shared between the 2 services. This helped with knowing what the person had done and what they had eaten and whether there were any concerns.

People were supported to keep in touch with their friends and family either in person or by telephone. A relative confirmed they were involved and could visit when they wanted.

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

People’s communication needs had been assessed, and a communication passport had been developed. A welcome pack was provided to people explaining the service and what they could expect. This was in an accessible format along with the provider’s complaints process.

People had visual daily planners enabling them to know what was going on during the day. This included accessible posters for events happening in the community.

The provider and the registered provider were aware that the electronic care planning system was not accessible for people they supported. They were working with the external provider to enable them to devise a more accessible format. The registered manager told us they were trialling a new accessible format at another service they managed, and this would be introduced to 120 Furber Road. They told us the focus had been transferring all care plans to the new system with the next steps looking at how this could be more accessible to the people they supported.

Staff completed information governance training to ensure information was stored safely in line with General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

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 were actively involved in making decisions about their day-to-day life. Monthly meetings were held with people on a one-to-one basis with their keyworker seeking their views and experiences of the service. This included seeking their views on staffing, their health experiences and the running of the service. As already mentioned in the report it was also an opportunity for them to plan goals for the forthcoming month.

A survey had recently been sent to relatives to seek their views. Feedback was positive. All relatives confirmed they were happy with the service and knew how to complain. A relative told us, “No concerns, the service is brilliant. Since (name of person) has moved to the service their communication skills have improved, especially as staff are getting to know him.”

There was a pictorial format easy to understand complaints procedure. This was to support people and those who represented their views to express if they felt unhappy in any way about the home, the staff or any part of their care. There was a formal system in place to respond to complaints.

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

People accessed the support they needed and prompt referrals were made to health and social care professionals, this included support from the community learning disability team.

People were supported to access the local community with support from staff. People were supported to do the things they wanted to do, and their learning disability did not curtail them from doing what they wanted. People had access to a house vehicle which enabled people to go further afield.

One of the people worked alongside the Milestones involvement team and told us about how they had been involved in using public transport and were able to feedback their views to ensure it was accessible. Staff told us this had been a paid role.

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.

People were able to feedback their views on how well the service was supporting them and where they had attended any health appointments if they had experienced any difficulties. From talking with staff, it was evident they supported and advocated for people. An example was given where a person found the ward environment difficult. Staff supported them during the day and at critical times to help with the person’s experience and to reduce their anxiety.

It was evident from talking to a health professional that adjustments would be made to ensure the person received a service that met their needs. For example, one person did not like to attend health care appointments, but a clear plan of support was in place to reduce their anxiety enabling them to experience a positive outcome.

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.

Not everyone had an end-of-life plan in place. The registered manager was aware that some work was needed in this area. Where people did have a plan this was person centred and included information such as whether they wanted to stay at home, the funeral arrangements, and any specific requests such as music.

People living in the home told us they were being supported, if they wanted to attend the funeral of a person that had lived in the service. A person said the music was lovely and “Just what they would have wanted.” It was evident staff had worked with the family to ensure the person’s last wishes were met.

From conversations with staff, additional training had been put in place to support a person with their end of life wishes as their needs had changed. This included working with other health professionals to ensure a joined-up approach for the person.

Care records contained decisions on whether a person would need to be resuscitated in the event of a life-threatening illness. These decisions were made in the person's best interest involving the staff, GP and their family. Whilst these are not a legal binding document these had not been signed by the healthcare professional that had completed these. The team leader had been proactive and addressed this by our third day of visiting.