Amberley Hall Care Home

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. We observed interaction between staff and people was person-centred. People’s care plans clearly recorded individuals’ personal preferences, from how they liked to receive their breakfast, including its presentation to how they enjoyed their daily routine. Staff told us how they ensured they delivered person-centred care. A staff member told us, “It’s allowing the person to make their own choices, it’s about them, what they like and how they like things done. Every person is different.”

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. The service was working with the ICB to improve discharge pathways from the local hospital. There was a rehabilitation team based within the service that worked for the local hospital. The rehabilitation team had daily, weekly and monthly meetings with the staff in the service to discuss the needs of people they were supporting and how to maximise their moving and handling skills. This had seen a significant improvement in the reduction of falls sustained within the environment. A healthcare professional told us, “There is a good rapport and good relationship with the staff. The continuity of the staff means a good outcome.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The service ensured information was displayed to meet the accessible information standards. They provided menus that were dementia friendly. They ensured people’s care plans recorded how they were able to communicate and the support they may require. All the people we spoke with told us of the information they were given on the service, and relatives were given “family guides.” We reviewed these guides and they were informative and signposted people to additional resources for example advocacy services and mental health support; they informed people what was in the area. They provided information in a variety of formats to meet accessible information standards. A person told us, “I have got a book from the home that tells me everything I need to know.” The provider produced a newsletter for people that informs them of what has been happening in the service and what they have planned for the future.

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. The service provided regular meetings to update and inform people of what was happening in the service; we could not assess how many people attended these meetings. However, the provider carried out a “you said, we did” on feedback they had received from people. They had annual surveys to encourage regular feedback. People told us they knew how to complain, 1 person told us, “It is in the book I got from the home, I would speak to senior staff If I needed too, but I haven’t.”

The provider made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The service was purposely built and was accessible for all people. The provider had effective procedures in place that staff embedded to ensure suitable arrangements were in place for out of hours emergencies. The provider evidenced a variety of healthcare professionals that were involved in supporting the care and support needs of people living in 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. Staff told us about the different aids in place to ensure people can access their care and support needs. People told us the service had enough equipment to support them. We reviewed people’s care plans, and they recorded the type of equipment they needed along with the serial number and size of equipment. Care plans recorded reasonable adjustments people needed to ensure they were supported appropriately. Staff had completed training in equality, diversity and inclusion.

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’s care plans recorded their end of life wishes to ensure their needs and wishes could be met when nearing the end of their life. Staff worked closely with a palliative team and staff had completed end of life training. We received mixed feedback from people around the discussions held about their future care and support. A person told us, “I can’t recall a discussion about that” while another person told us, “I already have my cremation plans in place and they know about it.”