Healey 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.

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 86 (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 was exceptional at making 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.

Managers and staff made sure people were at the heart of their care, support and treatment, with people receiving truly person-centred care in line with their care plans. Care plans fully reflected people’s physical, mental, emotional and social needs.

People living at the service spoke about their lives. It was clear they were supported to live a fulfilled and meaningful lifestyle, tailored to what was important to them. One person loved going shopping, to parties and the daycentre. Another collected globes and flags, and was a keen traveller. They told us happily, “I went to Spain with [staff].”

The service anticipated how changes to people’s health, medicines or routines may impact them; taking action to minimise adverse consequences and tailoring care and support responsively. A relative told us, “Very pleased with Healey House, they are proactive at helping [person].”

People and their relatives were actively involved in decision making about care and support when people’s needs changed. A relative said, “I can call for anything and they keep me updated.” Person-centred support was provided to ensure people could be involved in decision making as much as possible.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of autistic people and people with learning disabilities, and care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Several staff had worked at the service for many years, and the provider had recently employed a team of bank staff to work throughout its services, preventing the need of agency staff and improving continuity of care. Bank staff had robust training and inductions, to ensure they knew people’s needs well. The registered manager explained this had been a positive step for the service and people living there.

Staff and managers worked collaboratively with relatives and services such as the daycentre, so people’s care was joined up. A relative said, “Staff send me photos of what [person] has been up to.” Another added, “Staff got [person] an iPad so they can facetime us if they need help to settle.”

There were on-call arrangements in place to ensure management support was always available out of hours or during an emergency. The registered manager and/or deputy manager were at the service most days to support the team.

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

People’s communication needs were included in their care plans; and records showed people were supported to understand their health conditions or treatment options by providing tailored information. For example, sourcing easy read resources or relevant YouTube video clips, and explaining things in simple terms.

The provider had easy read terms and conditions and a mission statement in place. The terms and conditions clearly explained information about what people could expect from the service.

Staff had training in data protection, and a General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) policy was in place.

The provider was exceptional at enabling people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff always involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. Fully involving people in all aspects of decision making was well embedded within the culture of the service.

The registered manager spoke to people regularly on a 1-to-1 basis to seek their views about the service, the staff and any changes that needed to be made. People were also consulted prior to staff appraisals, so their views could be considered and included in feedback.

Questionnaires were sent to relatives and people, and there had been positive feedback from relatives about them feeling able to talk to staff, senior staff or managers. A relative had recently fed back, “The staff are all very approachable and accommodating. I have good working relationships with them all.” Logs were kept detailing contact with relatives which clearly evidenced they were consulted and involved in decisions about people’s care and any planned changes.

‘Feedback Fridays’ were held periodically which gave staff and people the opportunity to meet and discuss what was or was not working well. People also had the opportunity to take part in the ‘Compass Group’ and were actively encouraged to share ideas about a range of topics, and be involved in service development and improvement.

The provider had a robust complaints policy, and an easy read version for people with communication difficulties. The contact numbers for the local authority, advocacy teams, Healthwatch and CQC were included.

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

People received care and support in a way that worked for them. Where required, people had 1-to-1 or 2-to-1 support in place. Support was used flexibly to accommodate outings, appointments or to support people experiencing behaviour that communicated a need, emotion or distress

The service had adaptions in place to make it more accessible. For example, a lift and handrails. People had access to aids and adaptations such as wheelchairs or hoists where required. However, we did observe that the bath was not accessible to several people living at the home.

Following feedback, the registered manager assured us they would review whether people would prefer a bath if it was more accessible.

The provider ensured staff and leaders were innovative in how they listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. Staff and leaders actively used this information to provide exceptionally tailored care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff received equality and diversity training and there were policies in place to help them understand how discrimination and inequality may impact the people they supported. The necessary reasonable adjustments such as changes to the environment, or support with communication were made and regularly reviewed as people’s needs changed.

The registered manager and staff advocated for people to overcome barriers to care or prevent them being disadvantaged. For example, challenging decisions that were not in people’s best interests, or poor care and treatment. The registered manager had recently had to intervene when a GP was not taking concerns seriously for a person living at the service. They supported the person to move to a different surgery and put in a formal complaint on their behalf. As a result of the provider’s actions and the culture of the service, people were more empowered to understand and access the help they needed, when they needed it.

Staff understood the importance of providing culturally appropriate care. If required, food was stored and prepared in line with a Halal diet, and people were supported to celebrate Eid with music and traditional clothing.

The provider sent information around its services during LGBTQ+ month, to encourage open conversations and inform people and staff about preferred terminology.

The provider ensured 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.

Managers had supported some people to have DNACPR’s applied and several people had been supported to organise pre-paid funeral plans. Whilst the service did not currently support anyone who was at the end of their life, training was made available for when this was needed.

Where people had long term health conditions or medications, a structured approach was taken to ensure plans were in place for potential deterioration and medication changes. There was evidence these conversations had been held with people, relatives and healthcare partners in advance and where appropriate, temporary protocols had been put in place.

Staff captured people’s future goals in care plans, which were reviewed each year.