Archived: OSJCT Henlow Court

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 –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 mostly 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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. People were not always involved in the planning of their care. Most people and relatives we spoke with told us they had not been involved in the person’s care plan or review. One relative told us “‘Not really involved and as yet I’ve not been to any care plan reviews. Another told us “‘Transparency is an issue for me”.

However, we observed regular staff had developed positive relationships with people and demonstrated an understanding of their needs.

Care plans we reviewed contained information about people’s interests and support needs. For example, we saw communication care plans, spiritual beliefs and specific health related plans, such as diabetic care. These demonstrated that staff had access to information that supported person centred care and reflected people’s preferences.

However, not all care plans were up to date, and some did not fully reflect people’s current level of need. While the provider has introduced a process to improve family involvement, this was not yet embedded, and for many people, reviews with families had not yet taken place.

Families were generally kept informed of changes to individuals’ needs, which supports continuity of care and promotes transparency.

Feedback from external professionals working with the service was variable. While some noted improvements in communication and aspects of care delivery, others highlighted ongoing concerns. This inconsistency suggests that further work is needed to embed effective communication practices across the service.

Staff had access to enhanced training to support people with specific health conditions. However, compliance with this training was not always up to date.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. We observed that the building supported people living with a range of physical and neurological conditions. There was clear written and pictorial signage on bathroom doors. Handrails were clearly defined and natural, artificial lighting helped to ensure there was no confusing shadows that could lead to falls.

Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The service held meetings with relatives and people, asking for people’s input into what they would like to do.

People had an opportunity to join in with activities if they wanted to. One person told us “I go along to singing, exercise classes, do arts and crafts, quite a few things going on if you want to join in.”

However, some people wanted the opportunity to go out of the care home. One person told us “Don’t join in with much but I like the animals [pat dogs] and I like the garden. We don’t go away from here and I would like to.” Another said, “No getting out, would love to get out more.”

There was a system in place for responding to any concerns or complaints.

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

People were generally supported to access the service and were referred to external health and social care professionals when needed. Staff we spoke to understood people’s barriers to care and how to escalate concerns, although some staff told us they did not always feel listened to.

People had access to visiting professionals such as chiropodist, optician and hairdresser. However, we saw care plans identifying a 6-weekly chiropody review without evidence that this had consistently taken place.

One person living in an upstairs room liked to go downstairs and sit near to the door. This always happened as soon as the person got up. When a room became available downstairs the person was supported to move into it. The person told us they were happy with this arrangement.

The provider had systems in place to protect people’s human rights. Staff understood people’s rights and how to provide care in line with these rights. Staff and leaders showed understanding of the potential discrimination and inequality people using the service may face. Although staff and leaders told us this, we did not see any evidence of relevant training to support to this knowledge.

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.

End of life care plans were detailed and recorded people’s preferences. This information was readily available to staff through their handheld devices, supporting continuity of care. At the time of this inspection, staff compliance with end of life training was low. However, the provider has since given assurances that training has taken place and is up to date.