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

People received person-centred care. People, representatives, professionals and staff who knew people well had all been involved in a full review of people’s needs and wishes. Documentation had improved and support plans were now detailed, clear and person-centred.

People were allocated a key worker and had monthly key worker meetings. These were meaningful and allowed people and their representatives to discuss how the previous month had gone, what had worked well and what could be improved, and goals and aims for the next month.

The provision of person-centred activities had increased, and people were engaged meaningfully in activities that were of interest to them. One staff member told us, “Since the last inspection, there is now a stronger focus on improving documentation and there is greater emphasis on person-centred support. There is more effort put into engaging people in their daily routines and activities.”

Staff were encouraged to provide ideas for new activities and various plans for the future were being made. Staff analysed people’s enjoyment of the activities so that the activities could be built upon.

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. Processes were now in place to robustly record outcomes and recommendations made by other professionals so these could be incorporated into people’s support plans. Documentation was in place to support people’s integration into other services and to support continuity of care. Communication within the service had improved so all key information was effectively and swiftly handed over to all relevant staff.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Detailed communication plans were in place for people, and staff knew how to effectively communicate with each individual person, and this was applied consistently. Aids such as picture cards were used to assist communication. Recognised tools had been implemented to help staff understand and record body language and other cues people may give around their like or dislike of activities.

Relatives told us communication had improved under the new registered manager, but they would still like to receive more regular updates.

The provider had commissioned the use of assistive technology initiatives to assist non-verbal people to communicate and express themselves. This was a national project for the provider, and Bethany House had been selected to take part. The aim was to improve people’s wellbeing and quality of life through the use of new technologies which were designed to help non-verbal people communicate and achieve greater independence. This was a planned future piece of work, the results of which were to be shared with the local authority commissioners and other relevant bodies.

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 registered manager had an open-door policy, and people were free to speak with the registered manager at any time. We observed people coming and going from the registered manager’s office when they wanted to talk about things. The provider utilised surveys to gather feedback. Results from the surveys were analysed, actions taken in response, and these actions were fed back to people using the ‘You Said, We Did’ format. The provider had also implemented QR codes which people, staff, relatives and professionals could scan and then leave confidential feedback.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff understood the need to make reasonable adjustments to ensure people were not discriminated against and had equal access to all other services. The provider had made adjustments, as far as reasonably practicable, to the layout and configuration of the home and equipment, to enable people to access the property as independently as possible. Staff had clear guidance and protocols to follow around how to effectively communicate with healthcare professionals to ensure people’s needs were met and outcomes recorded.

Staff and leaders 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 completed training in equality and diversity and no concerns around discrimination were raised during the assessment process. Systems had been implemented to effectively monitor people’s experiences and people’s outcomes had improved.

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. No-one was receiving end of life care at the time of our assessment, but the provider had an appropriate policy in place which focused on providing compassionate end of life care. People’s future wishes in this area were discussed with them where appropriate and recorded.