Davies Court

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 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’s care plans were person-centred and reflected their individual care needs. There was information and pictures about people’s hobbies and interests. A relative told us, “[Members of staff] are so good with [family member] and I can't say enough good about them and to be honest I'd take that over better communication any day. [Members of staff] are very good with [family member] and they support [family member] to talk about their past trauma. I've seen the interactions they have, and [members of staff] will have a laugh with [family member]. [Family member] is a down-to-earth person and [members of staff] treat [family member] accordingly and they appreciate that. [Members of staff] personalise care and treat [family member] like they would want. [Family member] can be blunt with [members of staff] but they absorb it and they seem to know [family member] quite well.”

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. There were good links with local health and care services. People who received short-term reablement support had access to community-based clinicians and support team which enabled them to move through the improvement pathway and regain their independence. People lived in the residential care part of the service received specialist involvement from GPs, specialist nurses, community therapists and community mental health teams.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats tailored to individual needs. People were provided with a handbook which explained the care and support available to them. Posters displayed throughout the care environment provided information to people about the care they should expect. The information presented in accessible formats.

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. Members of staff engaged people in conversations about their care and support. People were asked to give feedback about what worked well and what worried them about their care and support. This information was analysed, summarised and shared with people and their families. The provider used this information to support continuous improvement of the service. People told us they could get through to the service by telephone although at weekends this could be more difficult and sometimes getting into the service at weekends could take time. Most people we spoke to felt the management team listened to them and were responsive but some people felt communication could be better.

The provider made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Members of staff understood people’s right to equity in accessing care and support. The provider made referrals to other services in order to meet people's needs when required. A family member told us they were happy with the quality of the service but would like to see more activities offered to people. They were aware the provider had recruited a new activities co-ordinator.

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’s care and support was individualised and unique. There were no concerns raised in relation to equity of experience or discrimination in the service.

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 had ReSPECT forms in place. A ReSPECT (Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment) form is a document which records a person's personalised clinical care recommendations for emergency situations when they are unable to make decisions or express their wishes. The ReSPECT process involves a conversation between the individual, their family and healthcare professionals to agree on realistic and beneficial care options, such as whether Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) should be attempted. Conversations had taken place with people and their families about their preferences for care and support at the end of their life and people had funeral plans in place.