Russell House

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.

People’s care plans reflected their physical, mental, emotional and social needs. Care plans on personal care were detailed and specific as to the support people required. These included the support required with oral care. Regular reviews of people’s care took place which involved the person and their next of kin. Relatives confirmed they were involved in their family members care, they attended reviews and contributed to care planning.

A professional involved with the service gave us examples of how person-centred care was promoted. They told us that a person, who had previously been socially isolated due to complex health needs, is now regularly participating in sport and social groups, thanks to staff persistence in identifying safe and suitable opportunities. They described care as highly adaptable and that when a person’s seizure frequency increased, staffing levels and activity planning were quickly adjusted to ensure both safety and continued inclusion in meaningful activities.

The service was continuing to review the electronic care planning system to ensure it provided a person-centred approach to people’s care.

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.

The service worked closely with other health professionals to promote continuity of care.

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

Care plans outlined people’s communication needs. These needs were met and reviewed to support their care and treatment in line with the Accessible Information Standard. Aids, props, pictures and Makaton signing were used to promote people’s involvement in their care.

Resident meeting minutes and peoples’ review information was presented in an easy read and pictorial format to promote their involvement in their care.

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.

Systems were in place to enable people and their relatives to share feedback and raise concerns. An easy read complaints policy was accessible to people and monthly key worker sessions took place to further promote an opportunity for people to tell someone if they were unhappy with any aspect of their care.

The provider facilitated resident and relative meetings which was an opportunity to give feedback on the service. They had introduced a quarterly newsletter to families to keep them informed of what was happening in the service and promote good communication.

Relatives were aware of the complaints procedure and felt able to raise concerns.

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

The service was accessible to people and people were provided with equipment to promote their access to all areas of the service and the community. Staff supported people to access care and treatment to minimise delays in their care and breakdown barriers they encountered in relation to their physical and learning disability.

Staff and leaders actively listened to the experiences and needs of people most likely to face inequality in care or outcomes, and tailored support, treatment, and care accordingly.

People did not experience discrimination or inequality in the delivery of their care. There were clear policies in place to promote equality and meet diverse needs.

Staff received training in equality, diversity, and inclusion, which informed their practice. Assessment and care planning processes considered a broad range of individual factors, including disability, age, gender, religion, and other protected characteristics.

We received no concerns from people or relatives regarding fairness or equity in the care and support they received.

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’s care plans indicated that ‘end of life care’ had not been discussed with the person and that family would take the lead on ‘end-of-life’ care when this was required. Care plans outlined whether a “Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation” (DNACPR) was in place, and this information was readily accessible in the event of a medical emergency.