Headingley Hall Care Home

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 outstanding. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 were personalised and reflected their individual needs, choices and wishes. Information included how people preferred to be supported, the people who were important to them, and their hobbies and interests. Activities were adapted where needed to reflect people’s preferences and abilities. One member of staff told us, “People are encouraged to take an active role in shared interests.” One person told us they had visited Yorkshire Wildlife Park the day before and that future trips were planned following discussions about places people would like to visit.

Where people required specific information within their care plans relating to clinical, communication or nutritional needs, this was clearly recorded and tailored to support their individual circumstances.

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’s cultural support needs, including their dietary choices and religious preferences, were recorded in their care plans. These plans clearly set out how staff should support people in line with their individual needs and preferences. The staff team was consistent, which helped people know who was supporting them and promoted continuity of care.

A multi‑cultural and wellbeing room was in place, having been identified as a need through the service’s continuous improvement plan. This room provided a quiet space for people and staff when needed. It was accessible to all and appropriately equipped, including the availability of prayer mats.

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

Menus were not always available in formats that were accessible to everyone. This meant that people may not always have been able to make fully informed choices about the food and drinks they received. However, we saw positive examples of information being provided in ways that met people’s needs, including the use of large print and pictorial formats. The management team confirmed that they were working on a pictorial and large print menu and this would be used when the new spring menu commenced.

The manager told us that key policies had been translated into different languages to support staff members for whom English is not their first language, helping to improve understanding and consistency in practice.

Information about the service and upcoming events was displayed on notice boards in communal areas. Relatives told us they were kept informed about any changes to their loved one’s care and said communication with the service was good. A weekly newsletter was shared with people and their relatives, which included positive news stories and introductions to new people who had moved into the home.

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 kept them informed about any changes made as a result. Regular surveys were undertaken, covering areas such as laundry and meal services. These gave people the opportunity to share what was working well and identify areas for improvement. Although we saw evidence that residents’ meetings took place, not all people told us they were aware of these. This meant some people could potentially miss opportunities to influence the care they received and the running of the home.

The home is part of NICHE-Leeds, a partnership between Leeds universities and care home organisations. It supports evidence-based research to improve the quality of long-term care for people living and working in care homes.

Staff meetings helped ensure updates were shared consistently across the team and provided staff with opportunities to discuss good practice and areas for improvement. The provider had a complaints procedure in place, and we saw examples of how the manager followed this appropriately when complaints were received.

The provider made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff monitored people’s wellbeing closely and responded promptly when changes were identified, seeking timely input from healthcare professionals to ensure concerns were addressed. People were supported to attend appointments, follow up‑ visits were arranged, and staff worked collaboratively with external services to ensure care, treatment and interventions were effectively coordinated.

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.

Information about people’s communication needs, cultural preferences, health conditions and any other factors that could increase the risk of inequality was gathered through initial assessments, regular reviews and ongoing conversations with people and their relatives. Staff also used information shared by health and social care professionals, alongside their own observations of people’s day to day experiences. Staff meetings, handovers and feedback processes helped identify individuals who might require additional support. This breadth of information enabled staff to tailor care to each person’s individual circumstances.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, including decisions about their future and their end of life wishes.

Some people did not have detailed end of life care plans in place. As a result, staff did not always have clear guidance about what was most important to people should their health deteriorate. This was discussed with the management team, who acknowledged that more detailed information would support staff to provide care that better reflected people’s individual preferences. They told us this had already been identified within the service’s improvement plan and was an area they were actively working to address.

The management team were aware of this shortfall and had plans in place for staff to undertake further training. This included training around death and dying, actions required following a person’s death and understanding the importance of recognising and respecting individual wishes, including those related to different faiths and beliefs.

The home had recently signed up to an after-death webinar, to enable them to explore the importance of a good death and appropriate aftercare for all.