Radcliffe Manor 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained as requires improvement.

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff made sure people were at the centre of their care and support choices. We observed staff interacting with people and found they respected people’s individual preferences and choices, but found during the onsite assessment that care plans lacked sufficient detail.

People’s care plans were not consistently personalised, detailed or up to date. This meant staff did not have clear guidance in place for every person they supported to understand what was important to them and how to support them appropriately. However, people and their relatives told us they have confidence in the care plans in place for their loved ones. One person told us, “The office went through my plan once with me, as I’m fairly self-sufficient, and it was fine."

A relative also told us, “I don’t take a lot of notice about the paper copy as I trust them. They’ll let me know straight away if anything changes.” This demonstrated that people trusted that care would be person-centered.

Lack of person-centered information in care plans was raised with the provider who told us they would review this. The provider did so and provided evidence of care plans which were person-centered and tailored to people's individual needs and preferences.

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 understood how to react if people experienced a change in their condition or required ongoing monitoring of an existing health need. Training had also been provided around specific health conditions such as Parkinson’s disease, diabetes and dementia to ensure staff could support people appropriately.

The service had a weekly ward round where health professionals visited and reviewed people using the service.

Where people had district nurses supporting them, the service had liaised with them for updates. During the assessment, we asked about a mattress setting for someone with skin damage. The provider acted promptly in contacting the district nursing team for clarification around this and provided evidence. This had not been found or reported by staff prior to this being raised by an inspector. Had this not been found during the assessment person would have been at risk of further skin breakdown.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff had received training around management of information.

Care plans contained out of date or incorrect care needs, meaning that it would be hard for other services to interpret the most current support people needed. Some people in the service had a ‘hospital passport’ used for attending appointments, however, care plans were not always updated in a timely manner, meaning that incorrect information could be shared with visiting professionals. The provider was aware of this and told us they will be working on updating care plans, with important information relevant to the person.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Leaders did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

Family members we spoke with were mostly aware of occasional relatives’ meetings. One relative told us, “I’ve seen a poster for a relatives meeting but haven’t been. I’ve had a newsletter once in a while, to keep us up to date on things.” Residents we spoke with had no knowledge of any residents meeting being held. One person told us, “I’ve not heard of one since I’ve been here.” We were provided with evidence of a residents meeting having taken place 4 months prior to this assessment taking place. However, people using the service felt that changes and decisions could have been communicated more clearly to them.

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

Some people were unclear on who the manager was and struggled to separate office staff and the manager. However, people with knowledge of the manager all said they found them approachable, communicative, and knew how to access them during office hours.

People were supported to maintain relationships with those who were important to them. We saw family and friends of people were able to visit when they wished and were made welcome by the staff team. Relatives told us they were made to feel welcome.

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 supported people to live the life they chose and there were no unlawful restrictions placed on them.

There were mixed reviews on the activities taking place at Radcliffe Manor House. Some people participated happily, others declined much involvement. One person told us, “I join in if I want but I’m not very keen really. I just like to watch TV in the lounge with whatever’s on. They used to take us out to the community cafe but not lately.” Another person also told us, “I’m not that keen but like it when a singer comes in or the children come to sing to us.”

Activities coordinators were in place 7 days a week. On the day of our visit there was one activity coordinator for the day, and a second coordinator arrived during the morning.

We observed some activities in the morning and afternoon including balloon games, dominoes, jigsaw, board games and a music session. On the activity list for the rest of the week was a quiz, fitness session by an external person, film club, bingo, poetry reading and games. We were told that a church member visited weekly for a small service.

People were not always 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.

Documents stated if people had a ReSPECT (Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment) form in place. A ReSPECT form can be used to record wishes and preferences so that in the event of an emergency, decisions taken about people’s care reflect their personal wishes. Some people had care plans with their wishes on end-of-life care, however, for others, these lacked detail. Where people were receiving end of life care, care plans contained details of treatment and who to contact. However, there was a lack of detail in place for people who were not receiving end of life care. This meant that people’s last wishes may not have been honoured.