Maiden Castle 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 service met people’s needs.At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained the same.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 service 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 told us the care they received was person centred; their relatives agreed. Relatives said their loved one’s needs and preferences were considered by staff. Staff told us they had enough information about people’s needs to provide safe and continuous care and offer choice and control. Staff knew people and their needs well. We observed staff supporting people in a person-centred way throughout the inspection. The provider had an electronic care planning system which meant information was updated instantly if things changed. Care was delivered according to care plans and people’s preferences. We observed positive interactions between people and staff, and people appeared relaxed and comfortable at Maiden Castle House. People were supported and encouraged to maintain important relationships with family. Relatives said staff were friendly and welcoming to them and encouraged participation.

The service 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 with each other and health and social care professionals to support continuity in care. People told us they could access the care and support they required. Staff told us how important it was to work with other professionals. Records showed input by healthcare professionals.Care plans and risk assessments were written in accordance with professional input. This helped to ensure people’s needs were met. Health and social care professionals told us staff followed their instructions, and staff would raise concerns regarding’s a person’s health and wellbeing.

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

Information about how a person communicated was detailed in their care and support plans. This information was highlighted within their communication care plan, if a person had specific communication requirements this had been shared with relevant professionals. We saw examples of where people were supported in their preferred way. We were assured this service met the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The AIS is a law to make sure that people who have a disability, impairment or sensory loss receive information they can easily read or understand. Staff adapted to meet people’s individual communication needs, for example, supplying a printed, pictorial copy of the activities schedule and display boards. Relatives told us communication was easy with the service.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People told us they felt involved in their care, where appropriate relatives were consulted and informed. Relatives told us staff made them feel comfortable to share any concerns, feedback or information as necessary. People and their relatives knew how to make a formal complaint if they needed to and were confident the registered manager would take it seriously. There was a complaints policy, and records showed complaints had been handled in accordance with the policy, this included provider oversight. All complaints and concerns were logged into the providers governance system. Processes were in place to ensure people could feedback on the care they received through various channels, including, verbally, through reviews, meetings and quality assurance surveys. The most recent survey for ‘residents and relatives’ showed positive results, with planned actions, such as, improved menu’s, activities and communication. Results showed a high level of satisfaction in the areas covered.

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

People could access the care and support they needed. Staff had received training in equality and diversity which had enabled them to appreciate what living a good life meant. People were given opportunities to be involved in, and access support, within their regular meetings and 1 to 1 sessions. Meetings within the service covered all aspects of care and support. Policies and procedures underpinned all working practices within the service, and this was supported by training and ongoing monitoring and review. Policies, procedures and working practices within the service had considered equity, availability and accessibility.

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.

People told us they were treated fairly, and their rights were respected, their relatives agreed. Staff had access to various ways of raising concerns about support and treatment which discriminates. Staff training, guidance and observations meant staff were consistently reminded of their responsibilities. The provider’s staffing structure meant there were members of supervisory staff present for many of the care interactions, this meant staff were given guidance and reminded of respectful practices. A member of staff said, “Everyone deserves the right to be treated with respect with regards to sexuality or their religion. You need to be a respectful person, if you are not then you are not in the right place.” Policies and procedures underpinned working practices within the service, and this was supported by training and ongoing monitoring.

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 were supported at the end of their life to have a comfortable and dignified death. People were given the opportunity to discuss their care and future wishes, together with family involvement if appropriate. Care plans were in place and staff understood how to support people at the end of their life. The service liaised with external health professionals to ensure people were comfortable and pain free. People had plans in place, which detailed their preferences for care at the end of life, such as not going to hospital and remaining at the service. The service had an ‘end of life champion’, a member of staff with a special interest in providing the best most respectful end of life care. They had supported staff and the creation of person-centred care plans for people.