Burnt Tree Croft

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 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 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. One relative told us, “Yes, I have seen [relatives] care plan, I am asked for my input regularly.” People and relatives had the opportunity to feedback on their care regularly at the service, for any suggestions of improvement.

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. People generally received care from regular staff. When using agency staff, the managers attempted to request staff who were already familiar with the service to support continuity of care. However, one relative told us, “Some carers are excellent. But there are agency staff who don't know [relative] or their needs well, which can make it difficult for us to find out how [relative] is." Some staff also told us that the use of agency staff had an impact on staff morale at the service and could reduce how effective care was given.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The service kept personal information safely and securely. If chosen to, people could access their personal information. For one person at the service whose first language was not English, the service had offered an interpreter to support them when settling into the home.

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 held regular meetings with people, which cultured an opportunity for people to give feedback about their care.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The service was accessible, and managers understood people’s barriers to care and support, and how to escalate these appropriately.

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. Policies were in place and in line with current best practice guidance around equality and discrimination. Staff were observed to treat people equally and had received training on the Equality Act and Human Rights legislation.

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. One relative told us, “We have discussed [relatives] end-of-life plan, they always discuss everything with us.”