Heyberry 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 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.

Care plans were person centred and included detailed information about people’s life stories, needs and preferences.

People’s choices and preferred routines they spent their day within the home were respected and facilities were for people to easily access. Comments from people included, “I can get up when I want” and “I like my room and I like sitting in this chair because I read a lot and they have books to choose from which are here near to me.”

Family members spoke positively about the care received and told us their loved ones were supported by staff who knew them well. Comments included, “I would say that some of the staff seem to know [Name] well” and “The staff have a good rapport with [Name] and know her 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.

People had access to a range of health and social care providers when needed as well as access to advocacy services if they needed support to make important decisions about their life.

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

Information about the service was visible on boards in the reception area. This included important information such as raising concerns about potential abuse or making a complaint about care. Photographs were visible to inform people who individual staff were, and their role within the home.

The reception area also included information about local upcoming events people could become involved in including social activities.

Staff offered people choices regarding available meals through written menus as well as by physically showing plated up version of the choices available. This helped people who lived with dementia to make appropriate decisions.

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.

A complaints policy was in place and information on how to make a complaint was clearly visible. People told us they knew how to raise concerns. Comments included, “I don’t know who is in charge, but they’d help me if I had a problem” and “I’d feel okay if I needed to say something wasn’t okay, but it always is”

Family members were familiar with the process. Comments included, “I haven’t had occasion to have to speak with the manager but would feel okay to do so if I needed to” and “I wouldn’t hesitate to contact any of the wonderful staff if there was an issue but to date that hasn’t been necessary.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. For example, people confirmed they could access the GP if they needed. One family member commented, “They see signs of [Name] being unwell and will get the doctor.” Records were maintained when people accessed support from other services. Where appropriate, important contact details were contained within care plans.

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.

Family members told us people were not excluded from receiving individual time with staff even when they received all care in bed. A family member told us, “They create a lovely home for mum. I will often see staff sat with her in her bedroom, keeping her company.”

The provider recognised the specific needs of people who had been veterans within the armed forces. Heyberry House had recently achieved external accreditation to a veteran friendly framework. This meant staff had received training around potential specific needs of veterans and care plans considered these needs when planning and delivering care and support. Activities were arranged throughout the year to recognise and acknowledge veterans for their service. The activities also enabled people to meet other veterans where they could socialise and share their common experiences.

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.

When appropriate people had shared their end-of-life care wishes and whether they had chosen to have do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) order in place. These wishes and any arrangements were clearly documented.

The provider had been recognised for their approach to end-of-life care through accreditation by the local health team. The service had recently introduced small baskets of refreshment and toiletry items designed to offer physical comfort and gestures of kindness to people and their family member during a difficult time.