Bethany 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 good. 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 54 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People did not always receive person-centred care. The provider did not always have clear plans in place around people’s person-centred goals, aims and aspirations. Where goals were in place, they were not meaningful, they were not made in partnership with people, staff were unaware of them, and there were no plans in place to achieve them.

The provider failed to provide appropriate stimulation and activities for people using the service. People’s participation in activities had declined. 2 people stayed in their rooms much more than previously and more could have been done to make people feel comfortable and motivated to access other parts of the house and the community. One person had not taken part in activities which they enjoyed, and which were beneficial to them, for at least the last 6 months. Sufficient steps had not been taken by the management team to ensure these activities could take place.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people, so care was not always fully joined up. Staff were not always aware of how other services people accessed were monitoring their health. Staff were not always aware of outcomes of health assessments completed by other services, and this information had to be obtained by the interim manager during our assessment. This meant this information was not contained in people’s support plans and this did not support good integration with other services and continuity of care.

The provider did not always supply information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Some steps had been taken to support good communication, for example, picture cards had been introduced to support people to make choices. However, some communication recommendations made by professionals had not yet been implemented by the service. Support plans were in place to guide staff around how to provide information to people effectively. However, we identified 1 person was not given sufficient time to process an important decision.

The provider did not always act on feedback provided by people about their care. In the most recent survey, 2 people said they did not know how to make a complaint. One person said they were not happy with the care received, and another person said they were not happy with the support provided by their key worker. There was no evidence of any actions taken in response to this feedback. However, a relative spoke positively about being involved in their family member’s care and told us they were contacted when needed and they felt listened to. They told us, “The family were involved and care plans discussed with them."

The provider generally supported people to access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Plans were in place to support people to access other services in a way which worked for them and referrals had been made appropriately to other services on most occasions. However, we did find 1 person had missed a medical appointment and another person had not been referred in a timely manner to the provider’s in-house psychologist, when it had been identified such a referral would be beneficial for this person.

Staff and leaders were aware of factors which might result in people experiencing inequality in their experience of care. Staff had completed training in equality and diversity. No concerns around discrimination were raised during the assessment process. The provider made some reasonable adjustments for people including the installation of a stair lift and the implementation of picture cards.

People were supported to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. People were supported, where appropriate, to plan for their end of life wishes and this information was recorded. The provider had a policy in place which focused on providing compassionate end of life care in line with people’s individual wishes. No-one was receiving end of life care at the time of our assessment.