Outlook Care - Neave Crescent

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 were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

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 choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care was person-centred, in line with people’s individual needs. Care plans were person-centred, and staff understood how to support people. Relatives expressed satisfaction with the care. One said, “It’s good care. I don’t have any complaints.”

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 worked with people and their families to meet their care needs. We saw on the day of inspection a relative attended a review meeting for a person. The provider also worked with local authorities and health care professionals to meet people’s needs effectively. This approach ensured people received coordinated care that met their individual needs.

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

People’s communication needs were covered in their care plans. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s individual communication styles. To help provide accessible information, it was provided in various formats. For example, some key documentation was produced in written and pictorial form. The service used pictures to help people make choices, for example, about meals.

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.

People were involved in developing and reviewing their care plans. This helped ensure they included what was important to the person. Regular residents’ meetings were held. Minutes of these showed they included discussions about menus and plans for Christmas and birthday celebrations. The provider had a complaints procedure in place. We saw that complaints had been dealt with in line with the procedure.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People had little opportunity to participate in community based social and leisure activities. The registered manager told us this was down to recent cuts from 6 staff per shift to 4. They said, “We used to do loads of outings, but we have had to scale that back because there is no money to fund it.” Staff we spoke with confirmed this was the case. One staff member said, “Some of them used to go out 3 times a week. That’s been cut to once.” There was an activities timetable. This showed that 2 people only had community-based activities once a week. Some others only had 2 community activities a week. During our first inspection visit, no one was supported to access the community and only 1 person was supported to go to a nearby takeaway outlet for lunch on our second visit. One of the directors for the provider told us they were seeking to address this issue with commissioning local authorities who funded people’s care.

We did see people had access to other community services, such as healthcare professionals. People were also supported to take part in activities within the home, such as puzzles and singing.

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.

The provider supported people in areas such as personal care and medicines. This was done in line with people’s assessed needs. The service also worked alongside other agencies such as health care professionals to help ensure people’s needs were met. The provider had a policy on equality and diversity which helped to guide practice in this area.

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 registered manager told us no one was receiving end of life care at the time of inspection. However, end of life care was covered in people’s care plans. Decisions were recorded about whether or not to attempt resuscitation for people. The provider had an End of Life policy to help guide practice in this area.