Tixover 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 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. Staff ensured people received care that was personalised and reflected their preferences and protected characteristics. People told us they were able to make choices about their daily routines and how they were supported. One person said, “I like to have a walk up and down to my room. They don’t bother about me doing that.” Another told us, “I don’t want a male carer helping me with things and they respect that.” Relatives confirmed staff understood people’s individual needs and interests, for example, “They know he is interested in farming and they bought him a book on farming so they could sit and look through it together.” Care plans were detailed, capturing information about people’s likes, dislikes, and cultural preferences, and personal comforts. For example, one person’s wish for daily hugs to ease their anxieties and their chosen brand of perfume. This showed care was person centred and delivered with attention to detail.

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 experienced continuity of care because they were supported by a consistent group of staff who knew them well. A relative told us, “They seem to keep the same ones looking after [Person] which I think is beneficial to them.” Staff demonstrated good understanding of people’s health and care needs and worked collaboratively with external professionals to maintain wellbeing. Records showed regular GP visits and multidisciplinary input, including physiotherapy referrals and medication reviews. Staff communicated effectively within the team and with families, ensuring changes in care were shared promptly. This helped maintain smooth transitions and integrated care.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People and relatives were kept informed about care and any changes. Relatives told us, “They always phone us if they need to update us with anything,” and, “I feel really well informed. They will phone up if anything happens or if Mum isn’t feeling well.” Information was shared in accessible ways, including phone calls, emails, and face-to-face discussions during visits. Staff understood the importance of confidentiality and compliance with data protection requirements.

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 and relatives felt confident raising concerns and told us they were listened to. One person said, “The Manager is very approachable so I know I could speak to them if I needed to,” and a relative commented, “We haven’t had to complain about anything but I am sure they would take it seriously if we did.” The service sought feedback through surveys, meetings, and informal conversations. Staff described how suggestions were acted upon, such as improvements to mealtime experiences and activities. People were involved in care planning discussions, and relatives confirmed their views were considered.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The environment was accessible, and reasonable adjustments were made to meet individual needs. People told us they could move around freely and if needed had use of mobility aids. Staff ensured equipment such as hoists and walkers were available when required. Observations showed staff supported people sensitively, allowing time and space for independence. There were no reported barriers to accessing care, and people said they were treated equally. One person told us, “There aren’t any special favours for people. They look after us exactly the same.”

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 equitable care and outcomes. Feedback from people and relatives indicated everyone was treated with respect and had equal opportunities to participate in activities and outings. Staff demonstrated awareness of protected characteristics and adapted care accordingly. For example, cultural and religious needs were considered in activity planning and meal options. Relatives told us, “As far as I can see everyone is treated with the same respect.”

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 express their wishes for future care, including end-of-life preferences. A relative said, “We have talked about end of life wishes as well and everything is recorded.” Another told us, “We have already discussed their care plan and got everything in place.” Records showed people’s choices were respected, such as remaining at the home and receiving spiritual support. A person told us, “My care plan was discussed before I came here, and I have expressed all my wishes for the future.”