Sir Aubrey Ward 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 68 (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’s care plans contained information about people’s preferences around their care, life histories, their favourite music and films, and how to comfort people. For example, 1 person’s care plan described a person’s early memories. One person’s care plan stated that they had a soft blanket that they liked to use when needing comfort. Another person’s care plan described their strengths. We observed activities taking place, and people regularly complimented them.

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.

People were supported by a consistent and long-standing staff team who knew them well and understood their individual needs, preferences and routines. Staff described positive working relationships between people and certain team members, demonstrating how continuity of care contributed to positive outcomes and experiences. The registered manager explained they were actively evaluating the personal qualities, skills and approaches of staff who developed particularly effective relationships with people, with a view to sharing and embedding this good practice across the wider team. This helped to promote consistent, person-centred support and maintain continuity in care provision.

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

The Accessible Information Standard ensures people with disabilities, impairments or sensory loss receive information in a format they can understand and communication support appropriate to their needs. Services should identify, record, share, meet and regularly review these needs so people can access care, make informed decisions and participate fully in their care and support. People’s communication needs were identified and recorded. One person’s care plan stated they spoke 2 different languages. Staff used technology to assist them in translating text from 1 language to another. Staff were directed to provide instruction cards in a second language to aid them to understand guidance in the event of an emergency. The service had sought assistance from a local charity to aid staff in supporting the person with their preferred language. This meant the person was able to understand information and make informed choices.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

The service could not be assured people and, where appropriate, their relatives had been informed of notifiable safety incidents in accordance with the Duty of Candour requirements. Records did not evidence written notifications had been issued to people or their relatives, or conversations regarding these incidents had been contemporaneously documented within daily records. As a result, the provider could not be assured that the Duty of Candour had been consistently applied and evidenced in line with regulatory requirements. This meant people and their relatives were not always aware of incidents that had occurred and were not able to make informed choices about their care.

The provider had a complaints policy, where complaints had been raised these had been investigated and responded to in line with the policy. People and their relatives confirmed they would feel able to share feedback. People told us they were able to attend meetings at the service to share their feedback. A person told us, “I just speak up.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff supported people to access a telehealth service for prompt medical advice when required. The provider had an on-call system where staff could seek support for out-of-hours emergencies. The service was designed and adapted to meet the needs of people who required environmental adjustments, including those who used wheelchairs. People were able to access all areas of the home during core hours, supporting independence, freedom of movement, and opportunities for social interaction across units.

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.

Care records reflected people’s diverse needs and protected characteristics, enabling staff to provide personalised care. Staff were aware of people's communication needs and took action to support effective communication. People were supported by staff of their preferred gender where this formed part of their expressed wishes, promoting equality, inclusion and person-centred care.

People were not always 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.

The provider could not be assured people were consistently supported to plan for their future care, including their end of life wishes and preferences. Records did not contain information about the preferences of some people, while others stated their families would make arrangements without providing further detail about the person's own wishes. This meant there was limited assurance that people's choices and preferences for future care had been explored and documented. However, records were available to evidence that some people had Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions in place where these had been appropriately considered and recorded.