43 Station Road

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 changed to requires improvement.

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care.

This service scored 61 (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 told us they did not feel included in how care and support were delivered to people. One relative told us, “Sometimes they email me bits and pieces”. Another relative said, “They update me when I ask. I never know who [person’s] key worker is. Communication hasn't been great, but the new manager has only just started.” They informed us that they received some documents by email, although did not feel included in reviews of care and support. One relative told us they had not been invited to a review in 2 years. They commented they wanted to work with the service and keyworker to achieve the best outcomes for their family member.

However, the provider did make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices on a day-to-day basis. We observed person-centred interactions during the assessment.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their localcommunities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff used providers record system to monitor when appointments were due. Support plans included reasonable adjustments for each person to support people to receive a positive experience of healthcare services. Professionals told us the provider provided a good level of care for people.

Staff shared information with healthcare professionals to ensure they received continuity of care. Support plans included services involved in people’s support network. Guidance from professionals was included within support plans to provide staff with a framework so they could meet people’s needs.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Communication plans were not consistently implemented and this limited people’s opportunities to express their wishes. People’s support plans contained details of their preferred communication methods and guided staff on what different signs and expressions may mean to individuals. Some information was displayed in the service in a pictorial format to support people’s understanding. However, we did not observe staff always using different non-verbal communication methods in line with people’s preferred communication style.

Staff were also unable to find aids to facilitate communication when we asked them. The manager told us they wanted to deliver training for staff and to use non-verbal communication methods consistently within the service.

The provider encouraged people to give feedback, share ideas, or raise complaints about their care and support.

The provider had systems in place for people to share feedback, make suggestions and raise complaints about care and support. The provider had easy read versions and posters available. Investigations were carried out in line with internal policies when complaints had been made. Staff told us how they supported people and communicated with relatives if they had any issues or queries.

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

Everyone could access all the parts of the house they required. There was a sensory room which was particularly enjoyed by one person. One relative told us that, “[Person] has the run of the garden. It's a nice home with a big garden”.

Support plans included religious beliefs for one person. Staff told us they understood how a person’s religious beliefs influenced their dietary needs and described how they supported these preferences in practice. We observed person-centred interactions between staff and people.

Staff knew when to take action promptly, keep the manager and colleagues informed and make referrals to other health and well-being professionals to address any issues with their health or changing needs.

Staff and leaders sometimes failed to support those at risk of unequal experiences or outcomes, resulting in care that was not consistently personalised.

The provider failed to fully consider individuals’ preferences, goals, and interests. Staff noted some outcomes, but did not monitor or track progress effectively.

Staff implemented measures to facilitate attendance at healthcare appointments. Management demonstrated awareness of potential obstacles individuals may encounter when seeking support, such as understanding available services through the community learning disability team in cases of delayed healthcare. Staff participated in training focused on equality, diversity, and inclusion.

Information was not always in place to show how people would be supported to plan for important life changes with their families and other professionals.

This included a lack of recorded personalised emergency care preferences, particularly for future situations where people may not be able to communicate their wishes. As a result, there was limited evidence that people had been supported to make informed decisions in advance about their future care, treatment or support needs.However, no one was receiving end of life care at the time of the assessment.