Matson 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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 79 (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.Care was individualised and tailored to people’s needs, interests and preferences, and staff worked flexibly to accommodate changes that were needed. People had choice and control over activities and daily routines, and staff supported them to access the community and maintain hobbies and interests. This approach helped people feel valued and respected. We observed staff responding to people’s requests and preferences throughout the entirety of the inspection. One staff member spoke about a person who they were supporting and told us, “I absolutely love working with [a person at the home]. The smile I get when I say good morning. [This person] knows how [they want their] day to go and I am just there to ensure that [they get what they want from their day] safely. I want [them] to be happy and have a good day. That is always my aim.”

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 management team worked with the local authority and external professionals to ensure people’s health and wellbeing needs were met. We found prompt action had been taken when people’s needs had changed, appropriate referrals had been made to ensure people had access to services that could provide further support to them. One professional said, “Following an episode of [distress for a person at the home], staff managed the situation safely and proportionately. They ensured the safety of all individuals, completed a debrief with all staff on shift, analysed the incident to identify a clear trigger, and promptly notified the local authority, the [family], and relevant professionals. An immediate in house PBS referral was also made. This demonstrated robust incident management and a strong commitment to learning.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The registered manager was aware of their duty to provide information in a format suited to individual’s needs. For example, in an easy read format. We found information on display to be accessible to people using the service. People’s care plans detailed their communication needs and the support they required; photographs and pictures were used to support personalisation and inclusion. A professional told us, “[Staff] are always trying to interact and engage with [people] based on their needs and wants. They always look at sensory tools to enhance communication.”

The management team were exceptional at enabling people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff always involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People, staff and relatives had several opportunities to share feedback about the service. The registered manager was committed to gathering feedback at every level, and in a range of different formats. They spoke passionately about the importance of capturing all kinds of feedback, including negative, to continually drive improvement within the home. We saw examples of photographs, audioandvisualrecordings to capture feedback and a clear audit trail of what action had been taken as a result. For example, work to people’s home and garden had been taken in response to people sharing their feedback and preferences in a range of different formats. One person had recorded a concern and asked the registered manager to share it directly with the provider. The provider responded to the person’s feedback in a timely way and took the requested action. We saw that this had a positive impact on the person and improved their quality of life as a result.

There was an active ‘have your say’ board displayed in the home, with an up-to-date overview of what had been done in response to people’s feedback. People who had specific interests had become supported to develop these, and we saw examples of people taking on fire marshall responsibilities and supporting with routine fire drills within the home. One person chose to regularly write notes to the management team, who then supported the person to action them in accordance with their wishes. Once these had been completed, they were moved to a separate file in the office to support the person to see how much they had achieved and how their feedback had been routinely listened to.

A professional spoke about a person who they had been supporting at Matson House, described the approach of the staff team and shared a recent example. They told us, “[The staff] listened to [the person], offered appropriate levels of control over [the persons] daily life, and balanced this sensitively with the structure [the person] required to feel safe.”

Relatives told us they felt involved with their family member’s care. One relative told us, “We've seen [our relatives] care plan. They asked us to review it. We are involved, and it gets amended.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The service promoted equity and inclusion, making reasonable adjustments for accessibility and sensory needs. Discussions with staff and management showed they understood how to access and routinely engaged with specialist health or social care support when people needed it. One professional said, “The team can recognise the individual needs of each service user and advocate for them or support with appropriate sign posting when required.”

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 aware of people’s individual needs, including any protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Care plans included comprehensive information about people’s interests and what was important to them. Staff completed training in equality and diversity to understand and reduce inequalities or prejudices that affected outcomes for people.

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. The provider had systems in place to ensure people were supported to plan for their futures. We found people had detailed plans in place for their future wishes. People also had regular meetings with staff and the manager about the short term and longer-term goals they would like to achieve.