Fryers House - Care Home with Nursing Physical Disabilities

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 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.

At the last assessment, we found people did not consistently experience person‑centred care or meaningful opportunities for engagement. At this assessment we found this had improved.

People told us they were involved in decisions about their day‑to‑day care and support and said staff listened to them and respected their preferences. People described being supported in ways that reflected how they wanted to live their lives, including their routines, personal choices and how support was provided when their needs changed. Staff demonstrated they adapted their approach based on people’s wishes and circumstances, which helped people feel in control and involved.

People told us access to activities had improved, including opportunities outside of the service. For example, 1 person told us how much they enjoyed accessing their local community. People said staff supported them to take part in activities they enjoyed and encouraged their involvement. One person told us, “I’ve been to London, Oxford and Brighton. I made the decisions of where I wanted to go.”

The manager described how they worked with people to identify activities that mattered to them and encouraged staff to support people to take part in activities as opportunities arose, rather than relying solely on planned schedules. This helped ensure activities were more responsive to people’s interests and preferences.

We observed people engaging in activities during the assessment, and people confirmed they enjoyed these experiences. For example, we observed shared activities where staff participated alongside people, and people told us this made the activities more meaningful and enjoyable.

The manager told us they had consulted people about activities they wanted to take part in and had introduced more ad‑hoc, in‑house activities, including music and singing sessions that people responded positively to. While some plans to further expand activities, such as increased use of outdoor spaces and strengthening links with the local community, were still being developed at the time of the assessment, people confirmed how their day‑to‑day experiences had improved since the last assessment.

Overall, the provider demonstrated a person‑centred approach, with increased responsiveness to people’s preferences, involvement in decisions about their care and support, and improved access to meaningful activities and experiences.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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

At the last assessment, we found personal information was not always stored securely, and some people and relatives told us communication was not always timely or effective. At this assessment, we found this had improved. The provider had strengthened information security and communication practices, and people told us they felt better informed.

Since the last assessment, the manager introduced regular meetings with people and with relatives to improve communication and keep them informed about the service. People told us they felt more informed and updated about what was happening. Some relatives confirmed communication had begun to improve, although they told us these arrangements were still relatively new and would take time to become fully established. The manager told us they were committed to embedding these improvements and rebuilding confidence.

We found the provider consistently stored confidential information in secure areas, and we did not identify any concerns relating to unlocked storage or inappropriate access at the time of the assessment.

People confirmed staff asked about their preferred methods of communication and supported them to access information in alternative formats when needed. One person told us, “I always have information in writing, I have seen other people have it in other formats.” This helped ensure people understood information relevant to their care and could make informed decisions.

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.

At the last assessment, people and relatives did not consistently experience timely communication, follow‑up or reassurance that concerns would be addressed. At this assessment, we found this had improved. The provider had strengthened their approach to listening to and involving people, with improved responsiveness and increased confidence among people and relatives that their views were heard and acted upon.

People told us the manager was approachable, accessible and responsive. People said they felt confident raising concerns or sharing feedback and believed action would be taken. They shared examples of occasions where the manager responded promptly to issues raised and took practical steps to address these, which reassured them their views were listened to.

Since the last assessment, the manager had introduced regular meetings for relatives to enable them to raise concerns, share feedback and discuss issues directly. While some relatives told us these arrangements were still relatively new and would need time to build confidence that improvements were sustained, most confirmed communication had improved since the last assessment. A small number of relatives told us they had not experienced an improvement in communication. The manager told us how feedback from relatives was used to review communication practices and make changes, including increasing opportunities for direct contact and follow‑up.

The manager described operating an open‑door approach, actively engaging with people and relatives on an ongoing basis rather than relying solely on formal processes. This supported more open communication and timely responses. Some relatives spoke positively about the manager and described them as approachable and responsive.

The provider had also strengthened internal communication. We found clear processes and expectations in place for staff handovers, which had previously been a concern. Leaders supported effective handovers by attending them on an ad‑hoc basis to ensure information was shared accurately and actions were followed through. This reduced the risk of information being missed or concerns not being addressed promptly.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

At the last assessment, we found the provider could not always be assured people received equitable care. At this assessment, we found this had improved. The provider supported equitable experiences and outcomes by tailoring care and support to people’s individual needs, circumstances and risks. This meant people received care that was responsive and aligned with their assessed needs.

People’s care records, daily documentation and risk assessments were detailed, up to date and consistent. Records reflected people’s assessed needs and showed staff delivered care in line with these. This improved the provider’s ability to identify and respond effectively to people who may be at greater risk of experiencing inequality in outcomes.

Staff delivered care in individualised and responsive ways, taking account of people’s different needs, abilities and circumstances. This helped ensure people received the right support at the right time and reduced the risk of unmet or overlooked needs.

Leaders demonstrated improved oversight of care delivery and risk management, which supported more consistent and fair care practices across the service. As a result, people experienced care that was better aligned with their individual needs and less likely to disadvantage those requiring additional or different support.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.