Tikvah Woodpeckers

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.

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. People received care that was responsive to their individual needs and preferences and records included information regarding their care needs. We observed staff delivering care in a flexible and responsive way. For example, people were supported by staff who ensured they were constantly available for people when drinks were required, personal care and any questions people had. Relatives told us people were cared for. Comments included, “I would champion it all as I feel so passionate about it. They always put [person] first and humanise everything they do” and “The family, they treat everybody as part of the family, they do it really well. The staff have supported [person] to attend very important family events.” We were told people were supported with shopping to buy items of their choice, people were understood and staff knew and treated them as individuals. Relatives told us, “This is what true person-centred care looks like, and [person] is responded to as a true human being. [Person] has wonderful opportunities to take part in activities that [person] wouldn’t have elsewhere. It is a wonderful holistic caring environment where everyone is provided for. It’s a wonderful place to live to be cared for and loved” and “If [person] wasn’t happy, [person] wouldn’t be there.”

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. The service worked with external professionals, including GPs, nurses to ensure people received joined-up care. We observed staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and routines, which helped ensure care was delivered consistently. The service user guide detailed the support available to people.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The registered manager and staff knew people well and understood how best to communicate with them. We observed staff took time to explain information and check people’s understanding. The registered manager told us information would be provided in appropriate formats to meet people’s needs such as pictures. People had communication passports which included guidance for staff on how people wished to be supported. For example, using calm, soft tones and asking one question at a time.

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 provider had records of complaints and compliments to drive improvement in the service.
The provider’s welcome pack clearly detailed the complaints procedure. The registered manager held weekly meetings with people to collect their feedback and to discuss, for example, food choices, activities and community outings. The registered manager told us families could meet with the senior management to share feedback, and the provider’s operations team held monthly meetings with a family committee. A member of staff told us they supported people and relatives with any complaints by informing them of the procedure which included recording, investigating and informing them of the outcome. Relatives confirmed they have never needed to make a complaint, but they were aware of how to do so, they were happy with communication from the home and were asked for feedback.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff understood the needs of autistic people and people with a learning disability and worked hard to ensure typical barriers faced by people were removed or mitigated against. The provider worked with healthcare professionals such as the GP to ensure people’s healthcare needs were met. People were supported to access the right health and social care services through well-planned and documented care, and good relationships with local health and social care professionals. People could access all areas of their home, such as the living room, conservatory and the garden.

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 understood how the Equality Act 2010 applied to their role. Staff treated people as individuals and made reasonable adjustments for anyone who needed them. This meant people were less likely to experience discrimination. Staff ensured adjustments were made to enable people to access the community, for example, visiting relatives and regular days out of their choice. During the site visit we observed people were supported into the local community. Relatives feedback confirmed people were supported to access activities outside of the village including weekends away and holidays. People experienced care and support that was equitable, inclusive, and tailored to their individual needs. Assessments and care plans identified people's cultural, religious, communication, and health needs, which enabled staff to provide care that reflected individual preferences. Reasonable adjustments were made where required to support people, for example, using equipment such as a wheelchair. The registered manager told us people were supported to access restaurants which supported their diet in accordance with their religion. Relatives told us staff knew people’s dietary needs and preferences. For example, we were told the food was, “Nutritionally balanced” and “They keep an eye on [person’s] food to promote [person’s] health.”

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’s records included information on how they wished to be supported at the end of their life.