Springwood

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.

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. We observed person-centred interactions at the service and people and relatives had the opportunity to feedback on their care regularly, 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. Staff had up to date training on supporting the needs of the people who lived at the service, including Dementia Awareness.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The service had information displayed in different formats. Menus were written each day on a communal corridor, and the activities board included pictures and symbols, which were displayed near people’s rooms. Relatives told us that they were kept informed about any changes and updates within 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. Surveys were sent regularly to relatives and professionals. There were frequent meetings for the people at the service to feedback on their care and support. There was evidence of issues being resolved from these meetings taking place, such as new meal ideas being added to the menu.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The service was accessible for the people who lived there. There was appropriate signage throughout the building, and sufficient equipment was in place to enable people to mobilise around. Care plans considered people’s needs, and what reasonable adjustments could be made to ensure people could access their care and support effectively.

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. People’s support was personalised, staff knew individuals needs well and protected people’s rights and removed barriers where they could.

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. People and relatives’ preferences were requested during end-of-life planning, and people’s wishes were personalised and respected. One professional told us, “People’s end of life at the service, is handled with dignity and respect.”