Tentelow Lane

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 as 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 and their relatives spoke positively about the service and for providing good quality, person-centred care that improved health and wellbeing. Staff knew the people they supported well, understood their goals, and delivered care according to their preferences.

Relatives reported that staff communicated effectively, responded calmly to distress, and involved them in care planning and regular updates. A person reported taking part in a variety of activities and said, “I go swimming, pub, cinema, church and bowling.” Care plans were detailed, clear, and personalised, reflecting each person’s individual needs. People were actively involved in developing and reviewing their care, with input from healthcare professionals, ensuring support remained relevant and responsive.

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 and their relatives spoke highly of the service and described the care as good quality and person‑centred. A person told us, “I see the doctor sometimes when I need to.” Staff knew people well, understood their goals, and provided support in line with their preferences.

Relatives said staff communicated effectively, responded calmly when people were distressed, and involved them in care planning and regular updates.

Care plans were detailed, clear, and personalised, reflecting each person’s individual needs. People were actively involved in developing and reviewing their care, with input from healthcare professionals, ensuring support remained appropriate and responsive.

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

People were given information in ways they could understand, based on their communication and sensory needs. The provider assessed each person’s communication requirements, and support plans clearly reflected these. Staff were trained to communicate with people appropriately. Staff were trained in Makaton and used it effectively to support communication with some people. These arrangements helped ensure people’s information and communication needs were met in line with the Accessible Information Standard.

We observed staff communicating with people using Makaton, which supported people to express themselves and ensured their communication needs and preferences were understood. The provider had appropriate Makaton resources available. However, the registered manager told us they were in the process of sourcing an up-to-date Makaton DVD, as the existing resource was not compatible with the service’s current equipment.

People and their relatives said staff communicated well and understood how they wanted their care to be delivered. Information was shared in the format people preferred and could easily understand. Staff could explain each person’s communication needs, and updates were shared during team meetings and handovers so everyone stayed informed and could adjust their approach as needed.

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’s views were listened to through regular meetings between their chosen representative and the registered manager to discuss feedback and requested changes. Staff worked together, sharing observations and ideas to improve care. Relatives noted that staff knew people well and contributed to care planning using their skills and experience. A person told us, “[Communication] is good. I speak to the staff and managers. They listen.” One person helped audit and improve services, showing people’s views were genuinely valued. Activities were central to wellbeing, with staff supporting cooking, shopping, and other meaningful activities, helping reduce anxiety and behavioural triggers.

People were given clear information about how to raise concerns and were confident their views would be listened to. Relatives and people reported that the registered manager provided opportunities to share feedback and addressed concerns promptly.

Care planning involved relatives, respected people’s choices, and was supported by healthcare professionals. For those with complex needs, specialist guidance, advocacy, and additional support were arranged, ensuring care remained person-centred and responsive.

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

People received care that met their individual needs and preferences. Staff involved people and their relatives in planning care and ensured they could attend important appointments. The provider worked closely with other agencies to remove barriers and support access to health and social care services.

Staff were trained to meet people’s complex needs and enabled them to participate in community activities while maintaining independence and choice. Care plans clearly outlined each person’s needs, routines, and preferences. Staff followed these plans, delivered care according to people’s wishes, and respected their voices, ensuring person-centred support.

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 and leaders listened closely to people who were most at risk of inequality and used this understanding to provide personalised care. Staff members told us, “As a key worker I know my key clients and also, I know their history” and “We take them to places of worship and we respect their dietary preferences as individuals.”

Care plans reflected each person’s needs, preferences, and lifestyle, helping ensure fair and consistent support. People and their relatives were involved in decisions and in accessing the right services. A relative told us, “[Care staff] took person to Butlins recently. They had a great time, I spoke to the registered manager to find what staff were going. They gave me assurance that [person] will be fine.” Staff were trained in equality and human rights, and people said they were supported in line with their care plans. Staff celebrated each person’s individuality and respected their beliefs, culture, and identity.

Learning disabilities were never seen as a barrier to meaningful experiences. People were supported to travel independently and take part in a wide range of activities which improved their quality of life and involvement in the community. Relatives spoke positively about the many opportunities available, such as cinema trips, exercise, and outdoor activities.

The service created safe, supportive spaces where people felt confident expressing themselves. The provider’s strong commitment to equality, inclusion, and cultural diversity enriched people’s experiences and helped achieve positive outcomes.

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 and their relatives were actively involved in planning for the future, including decisions about where they wanted to live.

The provider worked closely with health and social care professionals, such as GPs, to ensure decisions were based on clear, evidence‑based guidance. People were offered the opportunity to talk about end‑of‑life wishes if they chose to. At the time of this review, no one was receiving end‑of‑life care, but the registered manager understood their duty to ensure appropriate support would be in place when needed.