Archived: Ideal Home

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 changed to 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. Staff were very thoughtful about how and when they interacted with people. Staff were very knowledgeable about people's needs and wishes and were able to understand what people were communicating. People received person-centred care and support developed around their individual preferences. One relative told us, “The quality of care is excellent.”.

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 ensured people had access to healthcare and to family and friends. Relatives and friends were free to visit the home without restrictions.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats tailored to individual needs. People’s communication needs were identified and respected. We saw information throughout the home in accessible formats. However, during our visit we found the menu and visual timetable in the dementia unit had not been updated for that day.

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. People’s needs were periodically reviewed, and their feedback sought after. We saw evidence of surveys and questionnaires completed by people. The provider organised regular meetings with people. The provider used feedback to make improvements to the service.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.Where required people were monitored for weight loss, fluid and food intakes and we saw the provider used this information to ensure people received additional support from health care professionals.The home had a secure garden and there was open access to this from both units.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.Where required people were monitored for weight loss, fluid and food intakes and we saw the provider used this information to ensure people received additional support from health care professionals.The home had a secure garden and there was open access to this from both units.

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. Where people declined to take part in conversations this was recorded.