The Spinney 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 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.

People were consulted about how their support should be provided and how changes should be managed. Relatives described being appropriately involved when their loved ones wanted or needed their support. Staff understood the importance of discussing changes with people and taking account of their views before adjusting the support provided.

A visiting professional confirmed that staff understood a non-verbal person’s individual communication, preferences and family relationships. Staff provided detailed and accurate information to support the professional’s assessment.

Staff recognised that people’s wishes and priorities could change and that previous decisions should not be treated as fixed. Staff described continuing to seek people’s views and reconsidering their approach when a person’s circumstances or preferences changed. This helped ensure support remained relevant to what people currently wanted.

The consistency of feedback from people, relatives and staff gave assurance that working in partnership generally formed part of the service’s usual approach. People’s involvement was not viewed as a one-off exercise, and their views continued to influence how staff provided and adjusted their support.

This meant people retained influence over their care and changes were generally based on their individual wishes and circumstances rather than a standardised approach.

The provider understood people’s health and care needs and generally organised care, so it was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People were supported by a relatively stable staff team. Staff used care plans, daily handovers and electronic messages to share information about changes in people’s needs, risks and professional guidance. This helped familiar staff provide consistent support across different shifts.

Relatives told us staff communicated with them regularly about appointments, incidents and changes in people’s health or care. They described admissions, hospital transfers and returns to the service as well organised. Staff checked discharge information, reconciled medicines, updated care plans and arranged GP reviews when required.

One relative described how their family member initially stayed at the service for 6 weeks before returning to an adapted home. The person preferred living at the service and later returned permanently. Their relative told us, “They liked it that much that they sold their house to come back here.” This demonstrated that the person experienced a sense of continuity, satisfaction and belonging at the service.

Professionals also described joined-up care. One professional told us “Staff are knowledgeable about people's communication, preferences and family relationships. Staff provided accurate information and acted on professional guidance, which supported coordinated care and treatment."

The provider supplied people with accurate and up-to-date information in formats they could understand and use, tailored to their individual communication needs.

Information was provided to people and relatives in ways they could understand. Staff supplemented written information with direct explanations where this better suited the person’s communication or literacy needs. Staff gave people opportunities to ask questions and clarify information before making decisions.

Staff understood that people communicated and processed information in different ways and adapted their approach accordingly. This helped people understand the information provided, express their views and participate meaningfully in decisions about their support.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise concerns about their care and support. Leaders generally listened to people, involved them in decisions and acted on the feedback they received.

Leaders sought people’s and relatives’ views through meetings, surveys and direct conversations. These arrangements provided different opportunities for people to describe their experiences, make suggestions and raise matters they wanted the service to address. People and relatives generally felt able to share their views and described leaders as responsive when they did so. One person told us, “Staff 100% listen to my views.”

There was evidence that feedback resulted in positive change. When a concern was raised about a person’s personal care, leaders responded and addressed the matter. Subsequent feedback showed the person’s experience had improved. This demonstrated that leaders listened and took action when individual concerns were brought to their attention.

However, leaders did not always demonstrate how they tracked recurring themes from feedback or checked that resulting actions led to sustained improvement. This limited their assurance that all feedback had been fully addressed.

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

People told us staff responded promptly when they required assistance. Relatives described staff arranging support from healthcare professionals and specialist services. Staff did not wait for routine appointments when people’s health deteriorated.

Staff made adjustments to reduce barriers. Staff supported people with mobility equipment, provided assistance to move between communal areas and bedrooms and adapted how choices were presented. Staff verbally explained information to a person who had communication and literacy barriers, enabling them to participate in decisions.

Staff also supported a person to access a speech and language therapy assessment. The service provided detailed information about the person’s communication, preferences and usual presentation and remained available during the professional’s involvement. This helped the person access specialist support despite their communication needs.

Staff and leaders 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 did not report experiencing discrimination. The people we spoke with told us they felt equal and were treated equally. Staff respected people’s cultural and religious dietary requirements. This demonstrated that staff recognised people’s protected characteristics and adjusted their support in ways that respected their identities and promoted equitable experiences.

Staff understood that providing equitable support did not always mean treating everyone in exactly the same way. They responded to people’s individual circumstances so they could access care and support without being disadvantaged.

People were not always supported to plan proactively for important life changes, including their future health and end-of-life care.

One relative told us the service had not approached their family about future planning. Another relative said future wishes may have been discussed with a different family member, but they were not sure they had been discussed at all. This showed that discussions did not take place consistently with all people and those important to them.

Leaders did not demonstrate a consistent process for initiating future-care discussions, recording people’s wishes and reviewing them as circumstances changed. Without timely and sensitive planning, people could have less opportunity to make informed decisions and express their preferences while they were able to do so.

However, there were some positive examples of staff supporting people with planning for the future, including people’s end-of-life care. Leaders described working with palliative-care professionals, arranging anticipatory medicines and keeping families informed when people became seriously unwell. Staff understood the importance of comfort, dignity and involving relevant healthcare professionals.