Cassandra 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. The last time this was assessed 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 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 offered choice and knew people's preferences. People, relatives and professionals spoke positively about the service and staff support. One person told us "I am well looked after here." A relative told us, "There was nothing that could be done to make [Name]’s life any better." The registered manager appeared passionate about providing a person-centred service for people using the service.

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 registered manager told us they had regular meetings with families, supporting good information sharing. The provider created a handover policy to improve staff awareness of care plan changes. People were provided with opportunities to access the local community, and the service was happy to welcome groups from within the area to visit. This supported people's diverse needs and interests.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs which met the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The standard was introduced to make sure people are given information in a way they can understand. The standard applies to all people with a disability, impairment or sensory loss and in some circumstances to their carers. For example, menus and activity opportunities were handwritten on whiteboards. Pictures supported the information to improve the ability of people to understand this.

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 registered manager provided opportunities for people, staff and relatives to give their feedback about the running of the service. This was in the form of meetings, a suggestion box and one to one discussion. People told us that they felt able to raise concerns with managers, and they had confidence these would be acted on appropriately.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The registered manager and staff provided individualised care and support. People had equity of access to external health services without delay and the service worked with external professionals such as specialist nurses and community nurses to support people

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. Managers were always available to support people, staff and relatives when there were emergencies or concerns. Staff were able to recognise circumstances where the support of external services were required. The registered manager was looking into ways to improve people's involvement in activities around the service. For example, records showed us that people with sensory impairments were not always encouraged to join in activities, so the provider was working to address this.

People were not always 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 did not always have an up-to-date care plan reflecting their wishes at end of life. In some cases, there was no plan in place for this aspect of their future care, and there was no record that people had been offered the opportunity to discuss this issue or record any advanced wishes they may have.