Barlavington Manor

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 requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.

This service scored 62 (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 did not always make sure people living with dementia received person centered care. It was not always clear how people participated in making decisions about their care. People’s voices, preferences and wishes were not always reflected or explored within their care plans. Care plans and daily notes were not always written in person-centered language and did not always reflect people’s independence or autonomy. There were 21 people living with dementia in a dedicated wing of the care home. Their care was not always supportive of choice or in line with national best practice guidelines for people living with dementia. The environment did not always encourage people to think or act independently. It lacked sensory or stimulating engagement opportunities particularly for people who walked with purpose. There was lack of meaningful occupation for people to independently engage in. Considering our feedback, the provider told us they would consult with a dementia specialist to ensure the planned refurbishment of the dementia wing met the needs of people living with dementia.

The actions of staff and some established practices did not demonstrate a person-centred approach to meeting people’s needs. For example, at lunchtime we saw a person living with dementia being offered a choice of fish or moussaka. They chose fish however staff gave them cold meat and salad without an explanation. This did not demonstrate respectful or compassionate person-centred care. The provided told us our feedback would be shared with staff and used to improve people’s care experience.

The provider ensured processes supported joined up and flexible care. The service had good connections with health and community partners. People’s assessments, personal characteristics and preferences were used to plan treatment and respond to people’s wellbeing needs.

People told us they could be as busy as they wanted to be. Activity programmes were displayed around the building and reflected a variety of daily activities available to people. Staff made time for people who preferred to remain in their bedrooms. We received positive feedback from people about activities, and our observations supported people’s positive experiences.

People told us they had access to local community events and clubs. The provider had considered the rural location of the care home and ensured transport was available to people. The local bowling club was a popular choice and people said they were made to feel very welcome there. People told us they had enjoyed participating in recent VE day celebrations at the local primary school.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. There was some signage to support people with dementia navigate their environment and this was being developed further. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s individual communication needs. They told us people used written and spoken English. Where required they used pictorial prompts and different text sizes to support peoples understanding. Processes in place followed the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The standard was introduced to make sure people are given information in a way they can understand. Systems and processes in place ensured people’s communication needs were known and met.

People were able to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment, and support. People, their relatives and staff had opportunities to participate in meetings about the running of the care home although records showed these were not well attended. Staff told us they sought people’s opinions and ideas through general conversations, resident meetings, and discussions. They sought the experiences of people living with dementia through observation, advocates and from the person. We were provided with examples where feedback was used to improve people’s care experiences. For example, a person told us a chair specific to their needs had been provided so they could enjoy sitting in the garden. There was a complaints procedure. People and relatives knew how to raise a complaint and felt confident to do this.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it. People told us that they had good access to health services and were supported to attend routine and specialist medical appointments. Records were kept about these. Staff were knowledgeable about the signs to indicate a person’s health may be deteriorating and care records reflected staff had sought appropriate medical advice. We observed a telephone call between staff and the GP practice. Staff clearly described a person’s symptoms over the phone and antibiotics were prescribed with a follow up home visit arranged. This ensured the person commenced treatment in a timely way.

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 had received training in equality and diversity and knew how to support people in a way that took account of their individuality, abilities, and lifestyle choices. Staff had an awareness of discrimination and inequality and how to address this. Processes ensured people’s care promoted equality and protects their rights.

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 were supported to plan for their future. Some people had personalised end of life care plans that captured their decisions and what matters to them. Some people had chosen not to discuss their end of life wishes at the present time, but processes were in place for this, should they change their mind. Information was in place for each person for what to do in an emergency medical situation should this be required.