Homewood 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.

People and those important to them were involved in the initial assessment and any changes were discussed with them. People and those important to them complimented the staff and provided positive feedback. For example, one person’s relative told us, “They always involve her.” Another person’s relative said, “He loves planes. They take him to air shows.”

People’s care plans contained detailed information about their individual likes and dislikes, backgrounds, hobbies and interests. The plans helped staff know what was important to people and engage with them in a meaningful way.

Feedback from external health and social care professionals confirmed the service provided person-centred care and was responsive to people’s changing needs. For example, a health professional told us, “They know their patients very well and can advocate for them. They are able to provide useful insights that enable us to treat the patients holistically.”

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 had access to health and social care professionals as and when required, as well as regular contact when needed. The team worked together, had regular meetings and used handover documentation to ensure continuity of care.

Feedback from external health and social care professionals was positive. For example, a health professional told us, “In my experience, the patients are always brought to scheduled appointments, and staff are always very pro-active if there is a concern between appointments. They know about the patients and…clients always seem at ease with the support staff who bring them and seem to have good relationships.”

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

People’s care plans were written in plain English and explored their preferred methods of communication. Where there were barriers for people regarding communication, different methods of communication were explored such as objects of reference and communication cards. Consideration was given to the environment where communication took place, tone, level and pace, body positioning and body language as well as the words used. We saw staff were able to effectively communicate with a person using a particular object the person had chosen. We observed staff speaking clearly and calmly with people and that staff offered people choices and respected their decisions.

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 completed surveys and encouraged people to provide feedback. There was a ‘you said, we did’ board to show when and what actions were taken in response to people’s feedback. People and those closest to them told us they felt listened to. Complaints were taken seriously, investigated and feedback given to the person raising the concern. Any lessons learned were shared with the team.

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

People told us they had access the support, treatment and care they needed. We saw the service had transport to enable people to attend appointments and to go out and about. The service was well connected with the local community; some people were able to use public transport, and the service was working with people to increase their skills and independence.

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.

People’s protected characteristics were identified as part of their pre-admission assessment. These were detailed within people’s support plans. Staff demonstrated good knowledge and skills and knew how to recognise and prevent discrimination. There was an inclusive culture within the service.

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.

The service was in the process of collating information gathered in relation to people’s decisions about their future. The registered manager told us this has been difficult due to people not wishing to discuss the end of their lives. The service is exploring ways of collecting this information without causing distress to people or their relatives. The service manager for the area informed us the provider was looking into this as part of workforce development.