Penley Grange

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 as inadequate. 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.

People’s care plans were current and reflected people’s holistic needs including their physical, emotional and psychological wellbeing, their wishes and preferences. Staff regularly reviewed people’s care and when there were changes or in response to an incident.

We heard from relatives the service involved them in their family member’s care and provided them with updates. One relative told us they were involved in a needs review where they felt supported by the service, they described staff as “very flexible, welcoming and open.”

An external professional told us, “I would say that they do seem to offer person-centred care. When I have discussed service users under their care they have demonstrated in-depth knowledge of each service user on an individual level. It appears that the team try to support service users to meet their individual needs and there does not seem to be a one-size fits all approach.”

The provider recognised the importance of the provision of activities which was a team’s effort. Although a designated staff member planned some of the activities in advance there was always scope for introducing an individual approach should people wished. This was to ensure the person-centred approach where the intensity and types of activities was under a constant review to ensure these met people’s interest and enabled exposure to new experiences.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported people’s choices and preferences.

The team was consistent with no temporary staff working at the service and this meant staff had built good levels of rapport and trust with people which resulted in people being confident and relaxed with the team. Staff understood people’s diverse needs, which ensured they were more able to help people experience joined up care. The team carried out a mapping exercise of community and relationships to enable better connections with the local community and people living at the service. We also saw people were supported to maintained friendships with people living in a neighbouring care home. We found leaders were strong advocates for people. They represented people’s needs when liaising with external stakeholders ensuring people’s best interest had been prioritised and their family circumstances considered.

People were provided with information in an accessible format about their daily routines and plans. Staff recognised where people needed time to process information and supported people at their own pace. This enabled people to understand and express their views.

One relative told us how the new leadership team worked hard to improve the information sharing. They said, “It’s improved now, communication now is fantastic.”

Staff recognised the importance of alternatives forms of communication; there was a team approach to learning Makaton. Makaton isa language program that combines speech with signs and symbols to aid communication for people with learning or communication difficulties.

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. For example, staff told us the dinner choice on the day of our inspection was a result of people’s choices. There were regular residents meeting where people’s feedback was sought. We saw people’s reactions and agreements had been recorded recognising people’s non-verbal cues where people were not able to express themselves verbally. A staff member said, “The provider often consults with people who use the service through meetings and feedback surveys. Their needs and preferences are taken into account in care planning and service improvements.”

People’s relatives knew how to make a complaint and told us their feedback was being encouraged. There was a new easy read complaints policy introduced recently.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The leaders told us they had worked to build a positive working relationship with the local doctor’s surgery to make reasonable adjustments which enabled people to access treatment. Staff escalated health or wellbeing matters and sought advice as needed. People received additional health support from a range of external clinicians including opticians who visited the service.

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.

The service recognised that people’s disabilities meant they were at more risk of experiencing health and social inequalities. Staff found creative ways to manage risks to people and others which led to positive outcomes. For example, one person could not tolerate crowds and staff responded to this by carefully planning trips to the community to improve the person’s experience and prevent discrimination.

People and their relatives were supported to think about their wishes for people’s end of life, which was documented in people’s care plans. We saw an example where it’s been recorded the person was not ready or prepared to discuss their end of life care and the care plan focused around supporting the person’s family in case of a sudden bereavement.