Gleberry Support Hinckley

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 told us staff listened to them and respected how they wanted their care to be provided. One person said, “They listen, they don’t assume. There is only one person who can teach you how to look after me and that’s me, and they get it.”

Staff told us they offered people options about how their care and support was provided. One staff member said, “We follow what the client is saying, respect their choices and what the client wants.”

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 and relatives told us they experienced continuity of care from familiar staff. One person told us they had not received support from a new member of staff for several months and had not received support from anyone new. One relative said, “We get the same staff, a little group of staff.” Relatives also told us continuity meant staff were familiar with people’s needs.

Staff told us they mainly supported the same people. The registered manager told us they tried to maintain continuity and considered people’s preferences when allocating staff. They also recognised that, on occasion, staff and people may not be well matched and considered this when arranging support.

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

Some people’s communication care plans required further detail to accurately reflect how they communicated their needs and preferences. However, staff we spoke with demonstrated an understanding of people’s individual communication needs. For example, staff described how one person communicated through gestures and pointing, and told us “Sometimes we use picture cards.” The registered manager assured us these would be updated.

The registered manager gave further examples of how information was adapted to meet individual needs, including using large, bold text when communicating in writing with a person who had a visual impairment. The provider was aware of the Accessible Information Standard and told us information could be provided in alternative formats where required.

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 told us they could raise concerns and discuss their care with the provider. One person said, “I have no complaints. I have high standards and they go out of their way to make sure I am covered.”

Relatives also told us there was regular communication about people’s care and they could request changes when needed. One relative said, “There is a lot of dialogue between us. I will advise carers of any changes and they will advise me.” Another relative told us when they identified something that needed changing, the provider made the change.

The provider had a complaints policy in place, which had been shared with people and their relatives and set out how concerns and complaints could be raised. Complaints received were managed and reviewed to identify any learning.

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

People told us the provider was flexible in responding to their individual needs and circumstances. One person described how, when they were temporarily unable to use their bathroom at home, staff adapted their support so they could receive assistance with personal care at another location. They also told us they could request changes to their call times and said, “If I ask if I can have a call at 9pm, they will accommodate me.”

Relatives also told us the provider was responsive when care arrangements needed to change. One relative said, “They are really flexible. I have had to change times for all sorts of reasons and they sort it out for me.”

The registered manager told us the management team operated a rota to provide out-of-hours support. They also told us people could request additional care time where needed, which would be reviewed with them.

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 and their relatives told us they were treated equally and fairly. People were able to express individual preferences about their care, including whether they preferred support from male or female staff.

The registered manager gave examples of how staff supported people where they experienced difficulties accessing healthcare. This included contacting GP services on people’s behalf and, where telephone access was difficult, attending the GP surgery in person to support people to arrange appointments. The registered manager also told us staff supported people to contact their GP when they identified concerns about their health.

Staff completed training in equality, diversity and inclusion to support their understanding of people’s individual needs and preferences.

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.

No one was receiving end of life care at the time of the inspection. Some people had Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions or a Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) in place. Relatives confirmed these arrangements were in place for their family members, with one relative telling us the person’s ReSPECT form had recently been reviewed by their GP.

Care plans we reviewed recorded whether people had a DNACPR decision or ReSPECT form in place, so staff had information about these arrangements when providing care and support.