Magdalen Close Hostel

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 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 endeavoured to ensure 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. However, this was not always reflected in records, including care plans, as set out in this report. Despite this, people were largely supported to make day-to‑day choices about their routines, activities and meals. For example, 1 relative told us, “[Person] goes to bed and gets up when [they] like. [Person] often sleeps quite late. [Person] is very comfortable there.” Staff encouraged participation in individualised activities such as colouring, bingo, church visits, going to the beach, and attending weekly clubs. A person told us, “I like playing the drums.” People told us they enjoyed these opportunities. A staff member told us, “[Person] likes to do colouring, they are not a fan of the wind or the cold. We aren’t going to make [person] do things [person] doesn’t like. [They] can stay inside and colour and bake; me and [person] baked a couple of chocolate brownies.”

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 benefitted from continuity of care and told us staff worked well with community professionals. We saw people were supported to access a range of healthcare provision, including the GP, dentist, opticians, chiropody, speech and language therapy team (SALT) and hospital consultants as required. A relative told us, “[Staff] take [person] to the doctor and the dentist. I think the doctor occasionally visits the home.” People had hospital passports to set out their needs should they need to be admitted to hospital, and annual health checks in a range of areas to regularly monitor their health needs. Some hospital passports needed to be checked to ensure they were fully up to date, as part of the wider review of care records being completed. Leaders were aware of this and working to address consistency across records.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People’s specific communication needs were set out in communication care plans, such as whether they needed glasses or hearing aids. Feedback showed staff explained things clearly and adapted communication to meet individual needs. Staff could describe how they used visual prompts, gestures or simple wording when supporting people who did not use verbal communication. This included the use of Makaton and Picture Exchange Communication System cards (PECS). A relative said, “[Staff] understand [person]. They give [person] choice and use picture cards.” Another relative said, “[Person] likes to do certain things, and [staff] are very accommodating and make sure [person] is happy with what [they’re] doing.” Leaders confirmed that whilst some staff had qualifications in the use of Makaton, they were seeking to roll this out more widely for the staff team.

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. The service had not sent out any satisfaction surveys since 2024, and whilst responses held on file were positive, they did not show analysis or actions to support the continuous monitoring and improvement of service quality. As part of the service model was to support people with short term transitions, the length of time between surveys meant some people’s views were not captured. A relative told us, “I’ve never had a questionnaire.” There was also a lack of involvement for people who did not communicate verbally or in writing. The provider told us they would act on our feedback going forward. However, there had been no recent complaints at the time of inspection, and we received feedback any queries or issues were addressed informally. People told us they felt able to complain if they needed to and found management approachable. A relative told us, “If I had a complaint I would go to the manager,” and, “It runs very well. We don't have any complaints.” Another relative said, “The manager is really nice and helpful. [Manager] would deal with any complaint.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. There was an on-call system, so management were available in case of any urgent issues, concerns or emergencies. We received positive feedback from people’s relatives, and from professionals, the service was easily contactable. A person’s relative told us, “[Magdalen Close Hostel] are very good at updating, mainly by phone. They would ring me in an emergency.” A professional who worked with the service told us, “The service has always been responsive when contacted by phone, ensuring that queries or concerns are addressed promptly.” The premises was accessible for people with a physical disability, including the central courtyard garden. A relative said, “The very good thing is the setting. They are little houses with gardens and a larger communal garden in the middle. In the summer, they can all sit there and have an ice cream.”

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. Staff understood the needs of autistic people and people with a learning disability, and worked to remove some of the barriers faced. We received feedback staff made reasonable adjustments to support people in reducing inequality, and this was reflected in care plans. For example, we saw 1 person had an agreed pathway with consultant input to help them manage a long-term health concern, without having to attend the urgent care centre unannounced. This plan was intended to reduce waiting times and the person’s anxiety. Another person’s records clearly showed their preference for soft and loose clothing, to meet their sensory needs. We also saw management responded when a person had a new healthcare diagnosis, by inviting in a specialist speaker to the team meeting, upskilling the staff team.

People were not always 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. Care plans did not always set out how to support people holistically if very unwell, or in the case of family bereavement, to ensure effective future planning. We received some mixed feedback from relatives about whether needs were clearly recorded or had been discussed. However, we saw positive examples of emotional support for people where they had lost someone important to them, and how staff helped them in a compassionate and empathetic way.