Lindsay 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

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.

People’s care was person-centred. This was reflected in feedback we received during our assessment, and our observations of day-to-day care. Additionally, we found that people’s plans and assessments reflected people’s personalities, preferences and wishes, as well as including detailed information about their clinical needs. Interactions between people and staff reflected what was contained within their plans and assessments.

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 provider worked well with other services, and when someone needed additional support from external professionals, the provider was quick in taking steps to secure this for them/ There was a consistent staff team and a thorough induction for new staff which ensured continuity in day-to-day care.

One professional told us, “[The provider] works collaboratively with all parties and welcomes joined up working that benefits individuals.”

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

People were provided with clear, accessible and timely information to support their understanding of their needs, treatment options and available support. Information was shared in a way that supported people’s differing communication needs. This included the use of easy-read materials. People told us they were informed about their care and involved in decisions affecting them, included with the wider service.

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.

There were initiatives in place, which ensured people were listened to and involved. Such as, ‘you said, we did’. The provider regularly sought people’s opinions and input on the service as a whole and ensured to feedback the outcomes of this.

People were involved in the direction of the service, for example, with activities or events organised by the provider, this incorporated people’s choices, interests and opinions.

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

People were able to access services in a way that met their individual needs. People told us they were treated fairly, with considerations to their own characteristics and personal circumstances.

The provider operated an on-call system, meaning staff could access additional internal support from leaders outside normal working hours. External professionals told us, the service was always accessible to them if needed.

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 provider delivered care in a way that considered people’s cultural, social, communication and protected characteristics.

People’s feedback reflected that their experience of care was fair and equitable. People felt that they were afforded the same level of independence and opportunity as others using the service.

For example, the provider changed the whiteboard pens they used for the food menu board, to coloured ones to meet someone’s needs.

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.

Staff and leaders received end-of-life care training, which enabled them to understand what good end of life care looked like.

Some people did not want to talk about the end of their life, but where people had specific preferences and wishes, these had been incorporated into their plans and people had been involved.

Outside of end-of-life care, the provider supported people to plan for their future, with a focus on recovery, setting and achieving goals.