Gardens Neurological Centre

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. 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 relatives felt that needs, preferences and choices were known and respected. One person told us, “I love it here. I get to choose. I am aware of a care plan but do not really want to see it as I trust them (staff) 100%.” One member of staff told us, “I see good care and good interaction. We get to know what people like and dislike.”

Care plans were detailed and gave clear information about people’s needs, preferences and lifestyle. We observed staff working in accordance with plans in place.

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 with varied and, at times, complex needs lived at the service.

Feedback from the provider, staff and partners was clear. All explained that the service provided equal opportunities and there was a clear demonstration through the assessment process that the service considered the needs of different people, including those with protected characteristics.

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

People and their relatives had access to information when they needed it. A relative told us, “Information is received in an easy-to-understand format. The home uses a communication book to keep us informed.”

As described in other areas of this report, some relatives felt that communication from the service could be improved. The provider responded positively to the feedback we shared and confirmed they would complete a review of communication with relatives including content and frequency of contact, ensuring this was in accordance with people’s wishes.

Information was available at the service, including in different formats where needed. Care plans detailed people’s communication needs and preferences and ways in which communication should be adapted.

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.

People and relatives told us they were happy to make a complaint or raise concerns, but did not consistently receive an outcome. One person told us, “I think they do listen and, by and large, they come back (to me) too.” A relative told us, “I know how to do this and have shared concerns, but I feel some remain unresolved.”

There were systems in place to seek feedback. This included a complaints procedure, meetings and surveys. The provider confirmed that recent changes to systems was enabling them to record, and demonstrate, a more robust response to any feedback received.

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

There were consistent arrangements in place for the planning and delivery of care for everyone, without discrimination.

The provider had a clear system in place to ensure all people had access to care, support and treatment outside of the service as needed such as the enhanced care practitioner, out of hours GP, or escalation to emergency services 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.

People with a variety of needs, backgrounds and cultures were supported by the service.

The service had policies and processes in place to ensure people were treated equally and took action to ensure all people were provided with opportunities to give feedback about their care.

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, and their relatives where appropriate, were supported to discuss preferences about people’s future care needs and, where they wished to, the end of their life. One relative told us, “We’ve contributed to all parts of the care planning processes and future wishes for [relative]. This has included DNAR wishes.”

Some relatives expressed a wish to engage with the service more about making end of life plans and understanding the care pathways available, should the need arise. We shared this feedback with the provider, who confirmed they would taken action to ensure all relatives were provided with an opportunity to have a discussion, along with their relative.

Care plans included records of future care needs discussions and end of life care decisions. This included if people had chosen not to speak about it. There was a record of any Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) and Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) processes completed.