Frith 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 outstanding. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 79 (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 felt able to make choices about all aspects of their care and support. We saw examples of staff supporting people to make day-to-day choices, even where people had limited capacity for more complex decisions. Capacity assessments and best interest decisions were recorded, and staff understood the importance of assuming capacity wherever possible.

The provider operated a ‘resident of the day’ scheme which ensured people, and where appropriate their representatives, were able to review their care and support with members of staff from all departments on a monthly basis.

Care plans were very personalised and included comprehensive information about people’s preferences and lifestyle choices. This helped to make sure staff could provide personalised care which met people’s needs and aspirations. Staff spoken with had an excellent knowledge of the people they cared for.

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.

Staff worked with other professionals to make sure people’s individual needs were met. Continuity of care was supported through regular reviews, handovers and the use of electronic care records. People’s needs, risks and preferences were clearly communicated between staff teams.

Some audits identified areas where documentation needed to be more consistently completed, particularly around pre-admission assessments and essential information. The provider had recognised this and taken action through targeted support, additional audits and staff coaching to improve consistency and oversight.

The provider ensured people and their representatives received information in a way they could understand. Care records included clear, personalised guidance for staff about how to communicate with people, including preferred names, communication prompts and reassurance strategies. This supported staff to give information at an appropriate pace and in a supportive manner. The provider supported staff from overseas to enhance their English language skills to make sure they were able to effectively communicate with people who lived at the home.

Relatives were kept informed about people’s health, wellbeing and any incidents, and records showed families were contacted following changes, accidents or health concerns. Information about complaints and feedback processes was available, and responses to concerns were documented.

The provider consistently listened to people and actively involved them in decisions about their care and the running of the service.

People were encouraged to share their views through regular residents’ meetings, one-to-one conversations and day-to-day interactions. Feedback was used to make changes and improvements. For example, some people living at the home had requested a nail bar in addition to the hairdressing salon. During our visits, a grand opening of the nail bar took place, and people were able to take advantage of the new facilities.

People were supported to take on roles such as resident ambassadors to make sure all views were heard and shared with the management team.

Relatives told us they felt listened to and involved, particularly during significant events and when their family members were nearing the end of their lives. Positive feedback highlighted compassionate care, good communication and staff taking time to keep families informed, even when relatives lived far away.

People told us they would be comfortable to make a complaint if they were unhappy with any aspect of their care. One person told us, “If you complained they would do something. Someone in management would definitely do something.” A visiting relative said, “Anything I raise, they deal with.”
We saw strong evidence that concerns and complaints were treated as learning opportunities, with actions taken, outcomes reviewed and learning shared with staff. This demonstrated the leadership team promoted a strong culture of openness and continuous improvement.

The provider ensured people could access care and support based on their individual needs. People were supported to access health services, community resources and activities, including faith services and external professionals. Reasonable adjustments were made to support people living with dementia, sensory impairments or reduced mobility. Risk assessments were used to balance safety with independence, for example when people wished to go out into the community.

Staff had received training in equality and diversity which helped them to recognise and address any discrimination people may face.

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 provider ensured people had equitable experiences and outcomes. Care plans showed staff considered people’s individual needs, preferences and risks, including cognitive impairment, physical health conditions and communication needs. Staff worked to ensure people received consistent care that promoted dignity, safety and wellbeing.

The provider had effective systems were in place to monitor incidents, health outcomes and patterns such as falls or infections. Learning from these was used to adjust care plans, staffing and support arrangements to reduce risk and improve outcomes.

People, staff and visitors felt listened to and respected. Throughout our visits we saw people were supported in ways that met their individual needs and preferences.

The provider generally supported people to plan for their future care and support.
Care records included advance planning where appropriate, such as end-of-life preferences, treatment escalation plans and DoLS arrangements. Staff understood their responsibilities to review capacity, involve representatives and act in people’s best interests.

Staff delivered end of life care with compassion, and relatives spoke positively about the support and guidance they received from staff and the leadership team during difficult times. Staff worked with medical professionals to provide care and support when people were nearing the end of their lives. This helped to make sure people remained comfortable and pain free.