Somerleigh 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 that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Relatives were concerned they did not have access to sufficient information about their family members care and care plans. One relative told us, “I was promised access to [relative’s] notes when she first went there, but this has never transpired. I now live 2 hours away and access would certainly give me more peace of mind than I currently have.”

Relatives also did not feel included in care planning telling us, “I have never seen a care plan and have never had an annual review. I would have remembered.”
Staff were also not all positive about care delivery due to feeling additional staff were needed. However, when we inspected, the manager had just increased staffing and added an additional staff member during the day. A staff member told us this had made a difference.

However, we saw people receiving care that was suited to their needs and positive interactions between staff and people.

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 well with a range healthcare professionals to ensure people received care as needed. Referrals were made to appropriate services when people had needs such as swallowing difficulties or other healthcare conditions.

Staff were trained to recognise when people needed support and to note any changes in them to share with healthcare professionals.

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

The provider understood their responsibilities under the Accessible Information Standard. The manager told us they were updating the activities programme poster which was, when we inspected, a full month’s activities on a single page. They had decided to present a week’s activities per sheet and use large font and images to improve clarity. They had also added large print menus to dining tables so they could usually be read without needing people to wear their spectacles.

The provider had facilities available to translate information such as service user information packs into different languages and formats to facilitate better understanding.

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.

The provider ensured there were regular surveys issued to people, staff and relatives so they could receive feedback about their performance as a care service. Surveys issued in 2025 were mostly positive in their responses both from staff and relatives. More recent surveys had been issued however outcomes were not yet available.

In addition to surveys, the provider had an open-door policy which the manager had implemented, and people and relatives were welcome to speak with them at any time. In addition, people, relatives and staff had attended meetings with the management team since the manager commenced in post offering an opportunity for them to speak and receive updates about the service.

The provider had an electronic signing in system. When signing out, all visitors were given a chance to provide feedback in the form of a push button response to show how satisfied they were with their visit. Visitors, both relatives and professionals giving a low rating were approached for more information so the provider could address concerns before they became complaints.

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

People were supported to access health and social care support as needed. For example, a relative was supported to obtain an allowance for their family member.

The premises were fully accessible; there were passenger lifts and adapted bathrooms to enable people to use facilities regardless of their disabilities. There was appropriate signage throughout the premises to enable people to navigate.

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 trained in equality and discrimination and could identify who may, due to their protected characteristics, experience inequality.

We received no feedback about people or staff experiencing inequality and we saw people being offered choices throughout our inspection.

People were not always 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.

Not all care plans contained detailed information about people’s needs and wishes as they approached the end of their life. Some care plans had no information about peoples end of life care.

All staff involved in providing care had completed end of life care training, enabling them to support people when their health deteriorated.