Prospect 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 good. At this assessment, the rating has remained 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.

People’s care and support plans were fully person-centred and involved them and relatives as much as possible. Care and support were consistent with care plans, and people were proud to talk to us about what they did, what their hopes and aspirations were.

People spoke about the choices they were able to make daily and told us about recent trips out they had decided on as well as plans for future holidays. Relatives feedback was positive regarding person-centred care and support, noting improvement in the past year.

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.

Most people living at the service were able to continue to use resources they were familiar with after moving in, for example GP practices, which helped good continuity of care.

Care plans and conversations with staff demonstrated a strong understanding of and empathy for people and relative's needs. It was apparent that the provider saw immense value in trying to provide good continuity of care and support within the service in terms of rotas and key worker allocations, recognising the need to ensure that staff were supported to deliver this considering their own welfare.

The provider welcomed relatives’ involvement in people’s care and support, invited them to participate in activities and ensured people were able to benefit from regular contact.

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

Information was available around the home in accessible formats, with personalised door signs, communal areas well marked with pictures and accessible, pictorial menus in the dining area. Staff talked with people, explaining what was going on, checking things were the way they wanted and asking if they were happy.

Relatives told us that they were in regular, consistent contact with the provider and had access to information when they wanted it.

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.

Relatives told us about how managers had been pro-active in resolving issues and concerns. Where relatives did not feel the issue had been resolved, documentation evidenced what the issue hadbeen, but the provider had prioritised the wishes of people over relatives preferences. An example of this was that one person was seen by a relative wearing an old item of clothing when they had a new one. The person said they preferred the old one.

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

People told us all about the choices that they could make, to the decor of their rooms, their activities, their food and shopping. They expressed a joy in what they were able to accomplish and were proud to talk about it. People were observed engaging in activities with care staff who knew and understood them well, as evidenced in detailed and personalised care plans.

Relatives gave us examples of where people had needed assistance from external services such as GP surgeries and dentists. They said that staff were able to organise appointments and keep them informed.

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.

Care planning documents showed people were being supported to live well at the service, with reviews conducted to a regular schedule and daily updates completed, so staff had an awareness of every person’s needs. Staff therefore shared information well to enable the best experience for people living at the service. Communication preferences were reviewed on a regular basis, and we observed staff interacting well with people to understand their needs at any time. There was a recognition that everyone was different, but they were able to recognise well signs that may mean they needed additional assistance, for example a change in behaviours that may indicate the presence of an unseen infection.

The provider complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination, demonstrated regard to the needs of people with different protected characteristics and made reasonable adjustments to support equity in experience and outcomes.

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.

For most people at the service, end of life conversations was not something that they were ready to speak about, and this was noted in care plans. Relatives’ views on this were recorded appropriately. For the majority, the main life change had been moving into the service from a home setting at some time in the past. Now settled, the primary goal of the provider and relatives was to ensure that people had a settled, contented existence with sufficient flexibility to support choice and control as much as possible.