Hope Green Residential Home Also known as 1-1244000026

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

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

This service scored 61 (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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Although staff knew people and their care needs well, this was not always reflected in people’s care records. One person told us. “I’ve also asked to use a urine bottle, but for some reason they won’t let me have one, so I have to use a pad. They won’t tell me why I can’t have one.” We raised this with the manager, and we were informed the persons care records would be updated to reflect this need and staff would be informed to provide them with their preferred equipment.

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 provider encouraged and promoted people accessing services within the local community. For example, people told us they had attended the local museum, and the local church visited fortnightly.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The provider did not meet the Accessible Information Standards (AIS), documents were not readily available in larger print or a format to suit people. For example, daily activities were printed on a piece of paper and placed on the board, which made it difficult for some people to understand what activities were happening. Following our feedback, the provider assured us activity schedules would be printed in large formats to enable people to understand their choices and make informed decisions.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. However not all complaints or issues raised were acted upon. We also received mixed feedback in this area. Some people and relatives told us they felt listened to, whilst others told us they felt communication was poor from the provider and action was not always taken in response to concerns. One person told us, “One problem I have is there is someone who keeps wandering in people’s rooms. I’ve told them about it. I could lock my door, but I don’t want to have to do that.” Complaint records did not always evidence they had been responded to by the provider. We spoke to the new manager who informed us they were already looking into complaints from the last 12 months and addressing them.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The management team showed they understood how to access specialist health or social care support should people require this. The management team understood how to access other community services and made referrals to other healthcare professionals such as diabetes nurses, district nurses and General Practitioner [GP].

Staff and leaders listened to and understood the needs of people at risk of unequal care or outcomes, and adjusted support accordingly. They respected people’s human rights and promoted equality. The service worked with healthcare professionals to identify and support people at greater risk. For example, they referred people demonstrating symptoms of dementia to the mental health team for assessment and ongoing support.

People were not always supported to plan ahead for important life changes, including end of life care, in a way that allowed them to make informed decisions. While future planning care plans were in place, many included only general statements and lacked evidence of meaningful discussions or involvement from the person. The management team told us some people had chosen not to discuss their future wishes but acknowledged that care plans did not clearly record the conversations which had taken place, or the decisions people had made.