Frenchay 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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

The care plans we reviewed were up to date and contained information about people’s physical, mental, emotional and social needs, as well as their preferences. All records were being reviewed by the registered manager. Some people and their relatives had recently been involved in this process.

People felt they were able to make day-to-day decisions. Staff checked people’s communication or sensory needs during assessments, and these were documented in care records. This helped staff provide information in a way that was appropriate for the individual.

Staff worked with other professionals to ensure people received the care they needed, when they needed it. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they had enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People were regularly asked for feedback about the service, for example in surveys, resident meetings and via advocates. Where actions were identified, these were documented and allocated to named staff for follow-up.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People were not always involved in the planning of their care. Most people we spoke with told us they did not know whether they had a care plan and did not believe they had been involved in creating this.However, some people may not have remembered because they were living with dementia or other cognitive impairments. Some relatives told us they had been involved in reviewing their family member’s care plan recently. We discussed this with the registered manager who explained they were reviewing everyone’s care plans, but they had only started in post 3 months ago and so this was an ongoing process.

The care plans we reviewed were up to date and contained information about people’s physical, mental, emotional and social needs, as well as their preferences. Most staff knew people well, and we saw them providing care and support which reflected the individual’s needs and preferences.

People felt they were able to make day to day decisions. One person said, “I can do what I want, when I want, and how I want” and a relative told us, “Staff are always asking what she wants.” We saw staff offering choices about what they wanted to do or where they wanted to go and giving people time to respond.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities. This helped the provision of joined-up, flexible care which supported choice and continuity.

Staff identified and acted when they felt there was a gap in a person’s care, or if they were unable to continue to meet specific needs. There had been a large number of staff changes, but this was now settling and people received care from the same staff group. Assessments were carried out and regularly reviewed. This helped ensure people’s needs were understood and supported the continuity of their care.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People's additional communication or sensory needs were checked during assessments, and these were documented in care records. Staff knew who required additional support with communication and understanding information and took appropriate steps to ensure people's needs were met.

The management team told us different methods could be used to ensure people received information in a way they could understand. For example, by printing simple versions of documents, printing pictures or in large fonts, or using notepads to communicate when people were hard of hearing.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

People were regularly asked for their views and feedback about the service. This included through surveys, resident meetings and the use of advocates. Individual surveys focused on specific topics including quality of care, environment, activities and feeling safe. These were carried out almost 1 year before our assessment, but feedback was open and gave a wide range of views.

People had talked about issues including environmental changes, meals and activities in recent resident meetings. Actions were documented and allocated to named staff for follow up.

People and relatives told us they knew how to feedback or make a complaint. They told us they would speak to staff or a manager. One relative said, “I have spoken to the new manager – she seems to know what she’s doing”, However, a person living at the service told us, “If I had an issue, I wouldn’t speak to anyone.”

Staff and leaders made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it, regardless of any protected characteristics. Staff supported people to attend appointments when necessary.

Staff and leaders understood when there may be inequality in experience or outcomes. They recognised some people may face barriers to inclusion and worked with them and their relatives to address these. Staff and leaders took steps to reduce potential barriers where possible and tailored care to meet people’s needs.

Staff received training in equity, diversity and human rights and this supported them to understand how to meet people’s needs. This was observed in practice.

The provider’s policies showed an awareness of equality and human rights legal requirements and care planning for individuals supported equity in their experience and outcomes.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they had enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. Where possible, these were recorded in care records. No-one was receiving end of life care at the time of our inspection.

Care records showed staff had spoken with people or relatives to plan ahead and support people with future care needs or changes. Some people had created advanced care plans which outlined their preferences and priorities for their future care. Other people’s records documented their decisions about cardiopulmonary resuscitation.