Malden House

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 outstanding. 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 was good at making sure people were at the centre of their care andtreatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevantchanges in people’s needs. Care records showed that people’s care plans were tailored for their needs. Staff knew people well and went the extra mile to ensure their care needs were met. People’s likes and preferences were recorded in their care plans.

We observed interactions between staff and people. Staff knew people well and understood their needs and preferences. Relatives told us that people were well cared for, 1 relative said, “Outside the bedroom door they have a plaque with information all about their likes, what they used to do, so care staff know all about the people they look after.”

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their localcommunities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff knew people well. Staff had been at the home for a long time. People could access the community if they wished to, the team were open to suggestions made by people and their families. The team worked in a flexible way which meant people could make decisions and change their plans if they wanted to. The team were very open to working in a way which benefited the people living at the service.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People’s communication needs were assessed by the staff team. Care records were accessible and shared with people and relatives. Information was clear and relatives told us they were happy with the communication from the service. If needed the service could produce information in different formats for example, large print.

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 were at the heart of the service. Staff were willing to listen and act on any issues raised by people and their relatives. Staff created multiple ways for people and relatives to give feedback and make suggestions for improvements. For example, there was a residents monthly meeting and a newsletter was sent to people and families. The service also had an active social media presence. Comments from relatives included, “Yes, I was involved in his care plan and can add to it when things change” and “Yes, they have regular meetings there, and open evenings, and you are invited to any events they have”. The provider was excellent on acting upon any concerns or suggestions made by people and relatives. Actions were recorded and followed up by the team. People and relatives told us they felt listened to and valued.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People had full access to a range of health care professionals when requested. Everyone at the home had registered with the GP. Calls were conducted weekly to ensure peoples wellbeing was a priority. Staff followed all recommendations made by professionals.

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’s care needs were well documented and outcomes for people were monitored. The provider ensured people’s wellbeing was a priority.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time tomake informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Care records reviewed show people have been able to document their wishes for any life event. For example, if a person was on their end-of-life journey, the team have had specialist training to offer support to people. This included monitoring people for pain symptoms, making quick referrals via the GP and re-assessing equipment if needed, working closely with the local surgery and paramedics to ensure people’s needs were met.The service has achieved an award for the way they support people at the end of their life. People could be assured that their needs would be dealt with sensitively and competently.

The registered manager told us they have a focus on reducing hospital admissions. They look for ways to ensure people are monitored and early signs are followed up with the medical teams. This helps to ensure people can and do stay in the home for longer.

[RW1]Sorry, again I’m not sure this makes sense

[JS2]Any examples of ‘above and beyond’ EOL care? What was it that won them the award?