The Grove -4

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 inspection we rated this key question Requires Improvement. At this inspection the rating has changed to Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

It was sometimes more difficult to support people in a person-centred way due to staff deployment at some times of the day. People were supported to communicate in ways that made sense to them, although staff said they would benefit from more training in this area. People had started to be supported to follow their interests and be an active part of the local community. Care plans were person centred and detailed, giving clear guidance about how best to support people.

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 received person-centred care that was in line with their preferences, likes and dislikes. Staff and the management team knew people well and knew how they wanted to be supported. However, they did not always make changes to people’s support if it became clear people wanted to be supported differently or if they discovered a new like or dislike. Some people may have benefitted from some structured and consistent guidelines at certain times of the day such as mealtimes to help them feel well supported at these times. However, these were not discussed by the staff team and had not been put in place to guide staff how best to support people. Due to staffing deployment at certain times of day, people went for long periods of time without meaningful engagement making it harder to support people in a person-centred way.

However, people’s care plans were individualised and detailed how people wanted to be supported in line with their individual likes and dislikes. One person said, ‘‘It’s alright!’’ in an excited way when we asked if they liked the staff team. A relative told us, ‘‘The staff are really proactive and there is a genuine love and care for people.’’

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 supported people to get in contact with health professionals if this was necessary. People had started to be supported to be a part of their community and to follow their interests outside of the service. One person spoke with us about using public transport on a weekly basis and they enjoyed this. People had a consistent staff team who had worked at the service for extended periods of time to help promote continuity of care. One relative said, ‘‘[Family member] has built good relationships with the staff team now it has settled down.’’

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Staff knew how to support people with different communication needs such as using signs or objects to help them communicate. However, we did not observe these being used during our visits to the service and staff told us they did not use these consistently. Staff also told us they would benefit from further training in this area. We fed this back to the registered manager who sent us evidence to assure us improvements would be made in this area. The management team made sure information such as policies and procedures were available in easy read and accessible formats. One relative told us, ‘‘Since [registered manager] started communication has steadily improved and we are not just contacted when something significant has happened. We are updated about how [family member] is getting on.’’

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. The management and staff team made sure people, and their relatives were given the opportunity to feed back about their care and support. Staff held meetings with people to discuss their support and any recent experiences they had which they enjoyed. Staff took time to listen to people as they were being supported throughout the day. Relatives also told us they were involved in discussions about their family member’s support.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff supported people to contact health professionals such as GP’s or the emergency services if this was necessary. They followed professional's advice to help make sure people were supported safely. Staff advocated for people when they went to their appointments. A visiting professional told us the staff team were a ‘pleasure to work with’ and listened to their advice about how best to support a person with a potential new support need. A relative said, ‘‘[Family member] is the healthiest they have been, and I know staff make every effort to make them comfortable when they need to see [health professionals].’’

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. People’s outcomes were not always positive or consistent although they met the expectations of people and their relatives. It was unclear how people were being supported to discuss what outcomes they wanted to achieve or how staff were supporting them to achieve these. Due to staff deployment people were limited at some points of the day as to whether staff were available to support them to achieve their outcomes or access the community. As a result of sometimes going longer periods of time without staff interaction, people’s experiences at the service were sometimes not as positive as they could be.

The registered manager acknowledged this area could be improved and started taking actions to better support people. For example, they discussed ways to positively engage with people at the service with the staff team and changed staff deployment, so more staff were available at certain times of the day. They had also already started to make improvements and encourage staff to support people to be a part of their community more often over recent months. We were shown evidence of people really benefitting and enjoying this. One relative said, ‘‘The last few times I have seen [family member] they have been buzzing and really happy. I think being out and about more is really having a good impact for them.’’

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 been supported to put plans in place for the future including the end of their lives. Staff knew who to contact for support if people needed help at the end of their life. People had lived at the service for a number of years and staying there in the future was important to them and their family. The registered manager and staff team understood how important it was for people to stay in their home environment and respected this.