Ings Grove 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.The last time this key question was assessed it was rated good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met. The service was in continued breach of legal regulation in relation to good governance.

This service scored 57 (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.

People’s needs were not always accurately assessed. People’s health was not always effectively monitored and action taken in response to changes. For example, fluid intake and bowel health. People and relatives gave mixed feedback regarding their involvement in their care. Feedback included, “They have discussed my care here with me” and “When [Name] came here nothing was discussed and I wanted to know what was [happening].” Therefore, we could not be assured that care and treatment was always person-centred and tailored to meet individual needs.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities. However, care was not consistently joined up to support continuity.

Systems and processes were in place to ensure people had access to health care professionals when they needed them. There was an understanding of the diverse needs of people accessing intermediate care. However, improvements were required in relation to accuracy of people’s records and information sharing to ensure that care was consistently joined up. Improvements were also required with regards to oversight of this.

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

People did not always have information regarding their care and support available to them. For example, copies of their care plans and risk assessments. The registered manager told us that nobody had ever asked for that information, but they could look at providing it. A welcome brochure was available for people. The registered manager told us it could also be accessed in different languages and large print when needed.

The provider enabled people to share feedback regarding their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

The provider had systems in place to gather people’s feedback. However, complaints information was not always accurate. The registered manager told us they had not received any complaints for 2025. However, following the first day of assessment we informed the registered manager that a person told us their belongings had been lost in the transition to the service. They told us they had informed staff but had not had a response. In addition, another person told us about a similar complaint they had raised but they had not received a response. Neither of these concerns were on the complaints log that was provided after the site visits. We could therefore not be assured they had been sufficiently addressed.

People and relatives were not always involved in care planning and provided with relevant information. One person told us, “I have not been explained to how long I am here for and what is going on.”

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People did not always have access to treatment when they needed it. For example, people’s medicines were not always available for them, or they were not administered their medicines at the right times. In addition, people were not always administered their as required medicines when they were experiencing symptoms. People had access to health professionals when they needed.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes.

The provider complied with equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination, having regard to the needs of people with different protected characteristics and making reasonable adjustments.

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 were involved in making decisions about their transfer home. At the time of the assessment nobody was receiving end of life care. People were able to be supported to share their end of life wishes if they chose to.