Harvey Lane

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 Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to Good.

Good: This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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 had support plans in place; however, we found that they contained some inconsistencies and lacked information in certain areas.

We received mixed feedback from relatives about being involved in people’s reviews, one person told us, “[Relatives] care plan has been changed but without my consultation”.

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.

Staff had good working relationships with local health professionals and made sure people received joined up care.

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

People received information in accessible formats. For example, the use of pictorial cards. The menus contained pictures of the dishes offered. This enabled people to make informed food choices. People could check who the staff on shift were by checking the names and photographs on display.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about 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. We found that people and relatives were not consistently involved in reviewing their care and support needs. We received some concerning feedback from relatives, one relative told us, “This year I wasn't invited to [their] annual review, and I made a complaint to adult social care. Communication is chronic.” While another relative said, “Communication is very poor”.

The provider had a complaints procedure in place and relatives spoken with said that they were aware of how to make complaints if needed.

The provider shared feedback they had received through surveys, however, these were dated 2024, with one provided for 2025.

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

Staff worked pro-actively with local healthcare professionals to ensure people could access services when they needed to.

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 service demonstrated some positive practices, such as staff receiving training in equality, diversity, and human rights. Staff advocated for people and ensured people who were more likely to experience inequality were supported.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

We found from the support plans reviewed that advance decisions had been discussed with people's relatives.Support plans for people included their goals and aspirations. Case studies had been completed by the service in reviewing if goals had been met.