Glenroyd

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 75 (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 received care that was tailored to their individual needs, preferences and wishes. Staff demonstrated a strong understanding of what mattered to people and used this knowledge to deliver personalised support. Care plans were consistently reviewed and reflected people’s choices. Staff were observed to be kind and respectful, and people spoke positively about the relationships they had with the team.

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 effectively to ensure people received coordinated and continuous care. Staff collaborated with external professionals, including GPs, podiatrists and social workers, to meet people’s health and wellbeing needs. People had access to regular reviews and specialist input, and care plans were updated monthly to reflect any changes. Staff were competent in managing complex needs.

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

People were given information in ways that suited their communication needs. Information could be made available in large print and different languages. Staff worked with people’s individual communication needs to ensure effective communication.

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 listened to and actively involved in decisions about their care. Staff encouraged feedback through resident and relative meetings, surveys, and daily conversations. People told us they felt heard and respected. A family member said, “If there are any problems, the staff are very approachable, and things are sorted right away.” Staff used personalised care plans and visual tools to engage people, including those with communication difficulties.

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

The service made reasonable adjustments to ensure people could access care and support equitably. Staff adapted activities and routines to accommodate mobility needs and communication preferences. There was a call bell system which was promptly responded to.

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.

People experienced care that was inclusive and respectful of their individual circumstances. Staff demonstrated awareness of people’s diverse needs, including those related to dementia, learning disabilities and end-of-life care. Care plans were person-centred, and staff were observed to treat people with dignity and compassion. A relative said, “They always acknowledge my [relative] when passing by their door. [Name] is such a proud person, and they keep their dignity when helping with personal care.”

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 service supported people to plan for their future care needs, including end-of-life preferences. Care plans were clear, person-centred and regularly updated. Do not attempt resuscitation decisions were documented and accessible to staff. Staff spoke confidently about people’s wishes and how to support them sensitively. A person told us, “I have signed up to DNR. I feel safer here.” Staff had received additional training following complaints related to end-of-life care, and lessons learned were shared across the team to improve practice.