OSJCT Athelstan 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 and their relatives had been involved in planning the care they needed. Some relatives shared feedback with us about how good the communication had been with staff during care planning reviews. Care plans were individual and specific to the person. Care records demonstrated staff had provided care in line with the plans.

The registered manager told us they had recognised some elements of care needed improving to become more person-centred. They felt they had improved the standard by taking steps such as having consistent team leaders on each household and a more visible management team. The registered manager said, “Families are confident with the team leaders. The whole management team have laptops and base themselves around the home; they do observations of practice. Our specialist dementia nurse also does formal observations. She also checks care records and provides us with feedback.”

We observed good examples of person-centred care and saw people being involved in various day to day activities around the home. One person said, “The care here is very good. Staff encourage everyone to do what they can, they are also there for you if you need help. They are kind and patient, and I would happily recommend this place to anyone.”

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 provider worked with external services, to ensure people received continuity of care. Examples included social workers and health professionals. Details of this support was recorded in people’s care records.

The registered manager shared examples of joined up care they had provided for people. A local service also managed by the provider had experienced a flood. This had meant some people had to evacuate from this home during the night. The registered manager responded to this incident and was part of the organising team making sure people were safely re-housed at short notice. Five people from this service were re-housed at Athelstan House. Staff worked very hard to make sure people received continuity with their care. For example, people’s care plans and medicines had been sent with them to the service. Staff from the other home came to work at the service so people would see staff they knew. This provided people with positive outcomes. One person had decided to stay at Athelstan House due to them feeling very settled there.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People's communication needs were recorded in their care plans and adaptions made where needed to any information. For example, the provider organised documents in a larger font or in a pictorial format to help people’s understanding.

In the provider information return (PIR) the provider told us, ‘As part of their [people] ongoing care, we carry out monthly reviews or more often if a need changes, this ensures we have the most current information about people’s communication needs. This is vitally important and can impact the resident greatly if we do not get this right. Capturing the correct information, we will ensure residents continue to have a voice and be able to communicate in their preferred way This promotes independence, general well-being and can foster strong interpersonal relationships as well as building trust’. Records demonstrated these reviews were taking place.

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 provider had a complaints policy and procedure which was made available to people and relatives when moving into the service. The provider employed a designated feedback and complaints officer to help managers with formal complaints received. This made sure complaints were consistently managed as per the provider’s policy and timescales.

The registered manager acted on any complaints not made formally to the service. For example, one complaint about the service had been identified on social media. The registered manager took responsive action to resolve issues raised by the complainant. We saw evidence the complainant was very satisfied with all actions taken by the provider and registered manager.

The provider held weekly meetings with people to seek their input on a variety of things including activities they wanted to have, meal planning and changes to the home. Minutes were kept and shared with everyone at the service.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff organised a variety of services to come into the home so people who were less mobile could access support easily. For example, there was a visiting chiropodist, pharmacist and community nurse. The service was staffed 24/7 which meant people had support available at any time.

Staff had an on-call service for management support. Any concerns or barriers to people’s care could be raised with a manager to ensure they were resolved in a timely way. The provider employed a specialist dementia nurse to help staff get current guidance and clinical support for people with dementia.

The premises were accessible for all. The service was purpose built with wide corridors, lift access to all floors and natural light. One person said, “The rooms have a nice accessible layout making it easy to move about.” There was outside space accessed from the ground floor. During our site visits we observed the doors were open due to fine weather and people were able to move around at their leisure.

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.

The management and staff team had good knowledge of people’s needs and protected characteristics and were aware of potential barriers and discrimination people might face. In the provider information return (PIR), the registered manager told us, ‘In accordance with Trust policies we promote equality, diversity and human rights to promote a culture where no-one is judged based on their age, disability, gender, sexual orientation, religion or belief’.

People’s religious beliefs were recognised and acknowledged. Staff supported people to access religious services either in the main home or in their rooms if preferred. People with physical disabilities were supported to access local services and engage in their environment through the use of equipment and additional staff support.

One person was frequently experiencing distress wanting to leave the premises. Staff organised for them to access their local community daily with support from their friends. This meant the person maintained contact with their community whilst being safe with friends or staff who knew them well.

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.

At the time of the inspection no one was receiving end of life care, although the service had received many compliments about end of life care previously provided. Staff were aware of people’s wishes for the future, for example whether they wanted to go to hospital for further treatment or whether they had a do not attempt resuscitation plan in place. This information was recorded in people’s care plans. Plans also contained information about people’s cultural and spiritual needs at the end of their life.

Relatives shared positive experiences of being involved in future care planning discussions. One relative told us, “Very soon after my [relative] moved into the home we met with the doctor and lead nurse to sensitively talk through end of life care. It was a comfort to both my [relative] and the rest of the family that [person’s] wishes will be met in Athelstan House because of the home's expertise in this area. I am also impressed that the doctor visits Athelstan House on a weekly basis.”