St Johns Wood

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 service met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated 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.

Managers created personalised care plans. Staff followed these. A relative told us, “[Person] is getting what [they] need, way beyond, a bit of a miracle”. Another family member explained, “It’s all about what [person] wants. They encourage [person] to do what [person] likes doing.”

Staff and managers adapted care to people’s preferences and responded quickly when changes were needed. For example, if someone did not feel comfortable with a particular care worker, the manager arranged an alternative straight away. Families described the provider as responsive, saying, “The manager is very quick to initiate things and make sure I am on top of it”.

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.

Managers and staff worked closely with families and other professionals, such as GPs and district nurses, to ensure continuity of treatment and support.

People received support from familiar care workers and nurses, which helped maintain routines and relationships.

A relative said staff were “Very aware of [person’s] needs. They would be able to cope with anything.”

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

Staff asked people and their relatives about any communication or information needs and recorded these in care plans, in line with the Accessible Information Standard. People received information in a format they could understand, including digital records, phone, text, or email communications.

People knew which staff would visit because they were provided with care schedules and staff rotas. A relative said, “I don’t have any issues. The provider is always asking ‘what can we do to help?’” This reflected the provider’s proactive approach to keeping people informed.

Staff adapted their communication to meet individual needs, involving relatives, case workers, or professionals where necessary, and ensuring people could understand and express themselves. A relative said, “I don’t have any issues. [The provider] is always asking ‘what can we do to help?’” This reflected the provider’s proactive approach to keeping people informed and engaged.

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.

The provider sought feedback from people and their representatives by sending out requests for reviews via email or phone, offering people different ways to share their views, such as online reviews, feedback forms, phone calls or direct email responses.

The registered manager made visits to people and sought their opinions on the care they were receiving.

Professionals involved in people’s care also gave feedback directly to the provider which was captured via email.

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

Staff were punctual and reliable, and families told us they were kept informed of any delays. Managers and staff worked closely with health professionals, including GPs and occupational therapists, to ensure people received the right treatment. The provider supported hospital discharges, coordinating care so people could return home safely and without delay.

The provider actively promoted equality, diversity, and inclusion in access to services. People’s cultural, language, and religious needs were considered when planning care, and staff adapted care and communication to reflect these preferences. The multicultural workforce enabled the service to provide tailored support, such as halal or kosher meals, and communication in a person’s preferred language.

Care was personalised and flexible, with staff assignments and schedules designed to ensure continuity. People and their families were involved in planning and reviewing care, and had access to real-time updates and care schedules. The provider actively sought feedback and made adjustments to remove barriers, ensuring equitable access to services in line with legal requirements and best practice.

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 adapted care to reflect people’s preferences, backgrounds, and circumstances. For example, managers matched staff to people by gender when requested, and staff demonstrated awareness of people’s cultural and religious needs such as providing halal or kosher meals and offering support in a person’s preferred language. Staff also completed training to help them recognise and respond to the needs of people living with dementia, who may be at higher risk of inequality in outcomes.

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.

Care plans included advance decisions and preferences for end-of-life care, and staff worked closely with families and healthcare professionals, such as GPs, palliative care teams, and community nurses, to ensure needs were anticipated and met.

For example, a person receiving 24-hour care had regular input from their GP, community palliative care nurse, and dietitian. Nurses and care workers monitored their health, administered medicines including pain relief and injections, and coordinated hospital appointments and virtual consultations with consultants. Staff supported the person to remain safely at home, respecting their wishes and comfort, while ensuring all clinical needs were met.

Managers and staff reviewed care plans regularly with people and their families to monitor progress against personal objectives. A relative highlighted in written feedback that the service enabled their relative to remain safely at home until the end of their life, with all clinical and practical needs met.