Care Outlook (New Larchwood)

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 this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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 had tools in place to enable people to be at the centre of their care and treatment choices. However, these were not always effective. People were actively involved in all decisions about their care and had control over their own lives and what they wanted to do on a day to day level. Staff supported people in making their own choices. However, some care plans required improvements to consistently reflect detailed and personalised information and goals. Daily records were not always completed in a person-centred way. Leaders recognised this was an area for improvement and began making changes during this assessment. This included working with staff to understand the importance of accurately documenting the person-centred care they had delivered. However, this will take time to fully embed in practice.

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. Staff understood how to support people’s health, wellbeing and cultural needs. Where needed, the provider supported people to access external care and treatment they needed in a timely way. A person said, “Staff help me with seeing the doctor and if I need to go to hospital, they do that too.” A professional told us, “Care staff that I have worked with have been very proactive in building rapport with their clients and know them well. They actively highlight changes early to minimise this escalating. I am aware that they motivate clients to engage in their care, promoting them to take control and be involved.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People were provided with the information they needed about their care and support. If required, they were able to use alternative forms of communication in their care plans and risk assessments to ensure their understanding, for example, using pictorial information or large print. One person told us of their struggles due to being blind. They said, “Staff help me to read letters, and they helped me set up my Alexa device so I can put my diary on there.” Care plans detailed people’s communication needs and where appropriate, contained guidance for how staff should communicate in a way that was personalised to them. The registered manager was aware of accessible information standards (AIS). AIS provides the legal framework to support people with their communication needs. The registered manager told us, “We can provide information in alternate formats. When a translation of a document is requested into another language other than English or if a Braille or audio copy is requested we use [systems] to provide these.” Policies such as complaints could be provided to people in formats which were accessible for them.

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 and their representatives were actively engaged in reviews of their care and in making decisions, to ensure they were at the heart of these.People told us they were confident to raise concerns with staff and leaders. Information on how to make a complaint was available in people’s homes. Staff understood the complaints procedure. Any concerns raised were treated professionally and as an opportunity to learn. Feedback surveys were completed with people. Records demonstrated meaningful actions were taken in response to feedback.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People had free choice and access to any internal and external service provisions they required. Most people living at this service were independent. Where required, staff supported people to access health care, social activities and community resources. This included support to attend appointments, engage in hobbies and be part of their community. A person said, “I'm happy as Larry here. Sometimes I do activities but sometimes not. It’s my choice.” Health professionals confirmed staff and managers sought advice and made referrals which ensured people received support they needed when they needed it. Staff understood the individual circumstances of the people they supported, including physical, sensory and communication needs, and adapted their approaches to ensure support was appropriate.

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 told us they were in control of their lives. Feedback we received from staff and professionals, and documentation we saw aligned with this. Staff were kind, respectful, and focused on supporting people’s independence. Staff had completed training around Equality, Diversity and Human Rights (EDHR), which helped to recognise, promote and protect people's protected characteristics.

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. However, this was not always consistently reflected in care documentation. For example, people’s future aspirations were not always consistently included in their care plans. This meant it was not always evident what goals people wanted to achieve such as building on independent living skills or working towards an event such as a holiday or work. Leaders were open to feedback and began making changes. However, this will take time to fully embed in practice. Despite the issues identified with records, we were not concerned people were at risk. People told us they were in control of their lives. Daily care records evidenced people did what they wanted to do. Feedback from staff aligned with what people told us.

Where people had discussed their end-of-life care wishes, this was recorded in their care plans. Staff had received end of life care training. The provider had systems in place, to ensure people had access to the right care and treatment at the time they needed it.