Madelayne Court

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 71 (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.

Professional feedback was positive around the provider being proactive in ensuring people had access to external health and social care professionals and worked well in partnership with them.

Staff were attentive to people when required, however at times this appeared more task focused than meaningful interactions. This was fedback to the provider at the time of the inspection and some of the feedback we received from people and their relatives supported this. One relative told us, “I feel the residents need more supervision and engagement from staff.”

Care plan reviews showed who had been involved in the reviews, but we had identified some areas when information needed to be less generic. The provider was responsive to this feedback and has been completing ongoing reviews of all care plans to ensure documents are fully person centred.

Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of person-centred care and the importance of treating people as individuals.

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.

Handovers were carried out between shifts and care staff had access to the electronic care plans for information relating to people’s needs. Staff we spoke with knew people well. Communication between the home and external health and social care professionals was positive and records included information provided by external health and social care professionals.

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

Managers and staff were aware of their responsibility to meet people’s communication needs and make information accessible. Care plans we reviewed documented people’s communication needs, including if they required any additional communication needs such as glasses or hearing aids. The registered manager was aware of their responsibility to meet people’s communication needs and make information accessible under the accessible information standard (AIS) where required. The AIS is a legal requirement for organisations providing NHS and adult social care support to ensure people are provided with information in formats that support their specific needs, for example in easy read formats or larger print. People’s information was kept secure and confidential.

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.

We saw evidence of meetings being carried out and any actions from feedback were documented within the meeting minutes. One relative told us they felt able to raise any questions with the manager and staff. People told us they were invited to meetings but did not always know when they were being held. One person told us, “Yes, I have been invited to a meeting but last weeks I missed, it’s not advertised very well, so easy to miss it.”

The provider had a complaints and compliments policy in place as well as a complaints and compliments log. The complaints log had clear evidence of actions taken and lessons learned around any complaints received that were shared with the wider teams where appropriate.

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

People had access to health services and equipment to support mobility needs. Feedback from professionals was positive around referrals and the provider communicating with other healthcare professionals.

People were encouraged to participate with activities; however, we did receive mixed feedback around activities within the home. One relative told us, “Activities - I don’t feel [relative] is encouraged to join in anything. They are in [their] room most of the time.” Another relative told us, “[Relative] is taken out on day trips when they go.” During our onsite inspection we observed activities taking place, however, it did not always appear consistent across the 3 floors of the home and there were periods of time when people did not appear to be stimulated. We fed this back to the provider on the day of our onsite inspection.

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 had access to external health providers and healthcare professionals. We saw positive engagement with healthcare professionals such as GPs and District Nurses. Timely referrals were being made for example to the Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) team. We did not receive any negative feedback around people feeling that they experienced discrimination or were treated unfairly.

Training records showed staff had completed training in equality and diversity and staff understood people had a right to be treated fairly and equally. Staff training also included subjects such as dementia care and learning disability and autism, helping staff understand and respond to different 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.

Processes were in place to ensure people were able to plan for the future, such as end of life wishes and preferences. Whilst some care plans, we reviewed contained generic information around wishes, others we reviewed contained detail such as items the person may want with them when nearing their end of life, and where they wish to spend their final days. All care plans we reviewed documented if people had Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions in place.

People and their relatives, where appropriate were involved in planning for the future and reviews were being carried out.