HF Trust - Lympne Place (High Trees and The Beeches)

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 71 (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.

Relatives told us that staff knew people well. Comments included, “Staff know straightaway when people are upset”; “Staff understand them (family member) with all their different issues and handle people well; and “It is most definitely their (family member) home”.

People’s care records were personalised and contained their individual needs and preferences. This included people’s likes and dislikes, morning and evening routines and how they liked to spend their time. Staff were guided by detailed information about how people presented when they were feeling happy or upset and how they should respond in these situations. Some people liked staff to speak with them and give reassurance and other people preferred that staff did not give them too much verbal information. When one person became agitated and asked for an item of a specific colour, staff immediately knew what the person was referring to and helped them to locate it.

Staff described the importance of working as a team and having a sense of humour in supporting people and one another. We observed people and staff laughing with one another when they were getting ready to go out. Person centred care was discussed at team meetings and on an individual staff level when the management team had observed that not all staff had not acted according to expectations.

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 other health professionals involved in people’s care. Staff knew people’s care and support needs and where required had worked alongside health care professionals to ensure guidance was available to staff to ensure people’s needs continued to be met. There were processes to ensure people had access to health care services. Staff accompanied people to appointments to help advocate on their behalf.

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

The provider was aware of their responsibilities to ensure people with a disability, or sensory loss received information in a way they could understand it and support with their communication.

People’s communication needs had been assessed and were detailed in their care and support records. Aspects of people’s care was provided in a way people could understand. People had easy read information about how to make a complaint, road safety and what to do if there was a fire.

Relatives told us that staff knew how to communicate with people in a way they could understand. Bespoke communication had been developed for people. One person had a communication board which contained information that was important to them. When this person became upset or agitated staff directed the person to check their communication board so they could obtain the information they required. Some people used their own individualised form of Makaton. Makaton is a communication tool using signs and symbols. Photographs had been taken of people using their own unique Makaton signs to help them to communicate with staff effectively. People also had access to photographs of themselves taking part in things that they enjoyed.

The service did not always have a proactive and positive culture of safety.

There were significant omissions in daily records relating to people’s health and safety. The provider told us there were issues with the internet which meant that staff were not always able to access records in a timely manner. The provider had implemented checks on these records and some were being completed on paper, but this was not consistent. Without consistent or complete information, the service could not effectively identify, monitor and act when required.

Lessons learned were discussed at team meetings and as a result changes had been made to make improvements. However, lessons learnt about best practice in manging potential risks and staff practice with regards to safeguarding had not been implemented consistently. Guidance in minimising the risk of people being constipated and safeguarding procedures had not always been followed.

People with anxieties which they may present verbally or physically had positive behavioural support plans (PBS). PBS isa person-centred approach to understanding and managing challenging behaviours, focusing on preventing them and improving quality of life. These plans were developed and monitored by the provider’s national PBS team. However, the team had significantly reduced in numbers so they were not able to provide the necessary level of support to staff and people. PBS plans had not been reviewed yearly as planned which meant it could not be assured guidance for staff was the most up to date and effective. The provider told us there were plans to train a staff member locally to provide this support going forwards.

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

There were no barriers to people with a learning disability or autism being referred or admitted to the service. There was a clear admissions criteria and people’s needs were assessed before moving into the service. People would only not be admitted if the provider had assessed staff did not have the appropriate skills to provide safe care to an individual.

Staff understood the needs of autistic people and people with a learning disability and worked hard to ensure that typical barriers faced by people were removed or mitigated against. Relatives said that the registered manager lead by example to promote the rights of people with a learning disability or autism.

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 were made aware of the provider’s equality and diversity policy at induction. The policy was to staff and discussed in supervision and team meetings to embed staff knowledge. The provider gave examples of how people with a protected characteristic had been supported through the interview process and how this continued if they were employed.

Leaders and staff were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage people using the service and took action when needed. Staff supported people to go out in the community, take part in social activities and to make referrals to health services.

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 were supported to plan for their future by setting goals based on their dreams and aspirations. The provider had identified that further work was needed in this area to ensure everyone had long term goals that met their current needs.

The service had received compliments from health care professionals about the end of life care provided by the staff team. Comments included, “You and your team always do your best for those that you care for. The team worked to ensure (name of service user) was comfortable and well looked after”.