Vesey Road

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.

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

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

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.

The provider reviewed changes in people’s needs according to the organisational policy or when incidents happened. Reviews were robust and included advice to staff on how to encourages positive change. We saw an example of a review that reflected upon a persons personal wishes with regards to choices they made that had a large impact upon them. The registered manager ensured staff respected the persons wishes.

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.

The provider worked with healthcare professional to mitigate risk to people. We saw that medical and other health related appointments were kept up to date and records were kept of any concerns. An example would be when a person’s medication changed, the risk review included any possible side effects.

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

One person told us that the registered manager or staff read out written documents such as letters or care plans to them as they could not read. The registered manager told us that they had documents in different formats such as large print or different languages if that was required. They also confirmed knowledge of technology such as ‘talking mats’ should a person require them. Staff we spoke to were not trained in the use of talking mats as no one in home was using it currently. The registered manager told us that should the need arise, they would offer all staff the opportunity to train in using talking mats.

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. An example of this is when staff discussed care plan reviews with people in a manner that they could easily understand such as encouraging a person to type questions on a phone rather than ask verbally.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff understood it was important to involve people in all aspects of the service. One staff member said, “This is people’s home. We are just here to make sure that they have the support they need and to keep them safe. I try not to ‘crowd’ people and let them have control of what they want to do.”

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.

Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the provider as well as to the partner organisations such as community healthcare teams, was positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach in how they cared for people. One staff member said, “You must recognise different ethnicities and cultures, although we do not have any ethnic minority people right now, but I believe [registered manager], would recruit someone who could break any barriers, such as a language current staff do not speak.”

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.

People were encouraged to take part in discussions about moving on. However, no end-of-life discussions or plans were made for people. This meant that people and their families may not have wishes taken into account when the need arose. The registered manager told us that they would incorporate future planning into care planning. There were no people living at the home who were on end of life medications or considered at the natural end of their life.