Ballards Ash

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 68 (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 had their own personalised care plan which recorded what support was needed for a range of areas. This had been regularly reviewed and updated where needed. Key worker staff worked in partnership with people to review their support. We observed staff working in a person-centred way. Staff clearly knew people’s needs and supported people to do a variety of activities. This included light domestic tasks, going out on appointments and leisure activities and provided help with personal care. One member of staff said, “I will read people’s care plans and work with them. I work with each person as an individual.”

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

People had goals recorded in their care plans. These ranged from simple activities of daily living to exercise goals and engaging with the community activities. Whilst indoor goals were more consistently being achieved, people’s goals linked to outside of the service were not consistently being supported.

People’s care records demonstrated that staff were not supporting people to consistently go swimming for example. Staff were recording that there were not enough staff available or there was no transport. Relatives also told us they had noticed people were not doing as much as they used to. One relative said, “As far as activities go, they don’t do as much as they used to. It dropped off over COVID, and it has not really entirely recovered.”

We raised this with leaders and the provider who acknowledged this was an area that needed improving. The provider said they were just starting a strong focus on goals and making sure people had the support needed to achieve positive outcomes.

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

People’s communication needs had been assessed and if people needed information in different formats this had been provided. There was evidence of pictorial information, easy read guidance and informative signs on notice boards around the service.

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 service used a key worker system which was effective in making sure people were heard and involved. Identified staff were allocated people to work closely with which meant relationships were built between people and staff. Key workers also liaised with people’s relatives and kept them up to date with what was happening for people.

Relatives said they knew how to share concerns and would know where to get information on raising a complaint. One relative said, “I know if there is anything serious they [staff] will tell me. If I was not happy, I would speak to the manager first and if I did not get anywhere [the provider] has a website, I would go there.”

Some relatives did share they had not received as much communication about what was happening at the service as before and not been asked for their views by completing surveys.

The provider told us they were working on improvements to their care planning system which would enable people and relatives to be more involved.

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

The service was staffed 24/7 which included waking night staff. This meant staff were always available to respond to people’s needs. There was also an on-call system which enabled staff to ring for support or guidance any time of the day or night.

Staff made sure if people were not able to go out to services, they organised for services to come to the person. For example, there were regular visits from a chiropodist and a massage therapist.

People had their own rooms with en-suite and also access to communal bathrooms. There was a large garden with access for people with reduced mobility.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

The service was in a rural location which at times was a barrier to people accessing local services. Staff said it was not easy for people to use buses and there were times where there were not enough staff on duty who could drive. This meant people were not always able to pursue interests or hobbies consistently. Staff had started approaching the local authority to try and improve access for people to catch local bus services. However, there was limited evidence of work with any other initiatives to better improve people’s access to transport links. The new manager took action during our assessment to reach out to a local authority initiative aimed at improving access for people in rural locations.

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.

Some people had recorded their wishes in their care plans for end of life. Some people’s relatives had been involved and had provided information about areas such as funeral arrangements. Leaders said this was an area which needed further work and focus.