Bilney Hall

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 were familiar with the staffing as they were consistent. Staff understood people’s needs and preferences, this helped build trust with people and their relatives. One person said, “The staff are respectful. They chat and call to me as they walk by.” One staff member said, “It was easy to find a passion for care in a place like this.We love our residents and we are very fortunate to have such a good bunch of staff who genuinely care for our users. We are shown an excellent example by (Registered Manager) who deeply cares for staff, residents and their relatives.”

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 manager stated that, when using agency staff, the service endeavoured to utilise the same staff member wherever possible. This approach supported the continuity of care for individuals. Staff liaised with external professionals when peoples’ needs changed to ensure people receive consistent care.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Care records contained up to date information about people health needs. We found care notes to be completed consistently. An external professional told us, “The staff are friendly and appear to interact appropriately with residents and ourselves.”

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. The home had a complaints policy in place that was accessible. There was evidence of people, relatives and staff being given opportunities to provide feedback on the home. The provider had a ‘your voice, our actions’ survey in place that were accessible in visiting receptions in the home. One person told us, “The staff listen to me and are very kind.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People had been supported to access external health care services appropriately. Where people were unable to access the community, staff made arrangements for external professionals such as the GP, chiropodist and optician to visit the home.

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 had completed equality, diversity and inclusion training to help make sure they understood people’s different needs and were able to meet them.

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. Staff received training in supporting people at the end of their lives, care plans included people’s end of life preferences and wishes where appropriate.