Court House 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. The manager told us this area was still a ‘work in progress’ and they are supporting the staff team to fully understand what person-centred care looks like and how to write individualised care plans. Care plan audits completed by the management team had also highlighted this as an area for improvement. However, the care documents we viewed during our site visit were much more detailed and individualised than we found at our last inspection. There was a new deputy manager who had recently joined the service who told us they were going to be responsible for overseeing care plans going forward.

Despite this, we saw that staff did have access to information about people’s care and support needs. Additionally, staff we spoke with knew people and their choices and preferences for how they wanted staff to support them, and told us if they were unsure, they would check the care plan, speak with a colleague or ask the person and their family. A relative told us, “I have met with the manager to go through [cared for person’s] care records so I know where they are at in terms of their health and how the home is supporting [cared for person]”. Another relative said, “They [staff] know [cared for person] well and what they like or dislike”.

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 provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. People’s relatives told us staff had made referrals to health and social care professionals when required. Staff told us how they referred people for GP or ANP review. Staff could contact the GP surgery at any time if they had any concerns or questions, alongside weekly on-site visits. We saw records of when people were reviewed by health professionals and staff followed any guidance issued.

The Accessible Information Standard (AIS) describes how NHS and adult social care services should identify, record, flag, share, meet and review people’s information and communication needs. The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People’s communication needs were assessed and when people experienced difficulties with sight, hearing or speech for example, the care plans we looked at were informative and clear. Plans informed staff of any technology people used to keep in touch with friends and family.

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. People told us they found the manager and clinical lead very approachable and responsive to any issues they raised. The provider had a complaints policy in place and complaints were responded to in a timely manner.

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

People with protected characteristics were supported to have equitable access to services. For example, people with a disability which impacted their ability to leave the home were supported to access health services to meet their individual needs.

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.

Staff received training in equity, diversity and human rights to help them understand equality and address discrimination.

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.

Advanced care plans were in place, which included information such as whether people wished to go to hospital if their health deteriorated or if they preferred to remain at the service. Staff were trained in end-of-life care and could access additional support and advice from the local hospice if needed.