The Mead

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 71 (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The provider did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment due to some out-of-date care records and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s need.

People’s care records did not always reflect their current needs, preferences, or lived experience. Some care plans lacked sufficient detail to guide staff on how to support people in a personalised way, particularly where people had complex needs. This meant staff did not always have clear, consistent information to support people in ways that reflected their choices and values. The new manager and team were taking action to ensure care records were improved.

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.

Staff worked collaboratively across teams and with external professionals to deliver integrated support aligned with each person’s assessed needs. Health professionals visited the home regularly and therewere effectivecommunication systems in placeto ensure care was joined up.

The service adhered to the Accessible Information Standard, with communication preferences clearly identified, recorded, and acted upon. Information was provided in accessible formats as required, such as easy read or large print. Staff had clear knowledge of people’s specific communication needs.

The provider involved people and their relatives in reviews of their care. There was a complaints procedure in place. Relatives told us they knew how to make a complaint. They explained that they could speak with staff or managers about any concerns and felt these were addressed appropriately. The provider asked people using the service, relatives and other stakeholders to contribute their views through regular surveys about their experiences.

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

People were supported to access services which included regular health care visits including district nurses and chiropody.

People had equity in experience and outcomes. Staff undertook training about equality and human rights. People’s care plans included information about their individual needs and lifestyle choices. Relatives told us people’s human rights were respected. The provider had procedures regarding diversity and inclusion.

People were supported to plan for significant life changes and given sufficient time to make informed decisions about their future, including end‑of‑life care. Care plans recorded some information about people’s requirements.