Pelham Manor

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.

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.

People had a person-centred plan and individualised structured timetable. During our assessment most people attended the local day centre run by the provider which offered activities such as dance and movement, bowling and arts and crafts. The centre also contained a TV room, IT suite and games room that people could access. Relatives told us that people had active busy lives. A relative said, “She has a good life and she is always out and about. Going out for meals and disco dancing. She has a better life than us.” Another relative told us, “He enjoys going out. They gave him a lovely party for his birthday. I ring when they have a karaoke night and join in on the phone.” One person chose not to go to day services and went out with a staff member. Their relative told us, “Staff always make sure he gets out at least once a day."

Relatives told us staff knew people well, including their likes and dislikes. A relative told us, “She feels like it is home. She has known some staff for many years. There is always great staff. She is very happy she is there.” We observed staff understood people’s communication styles and adapted accordingly. Some people’s care plans guided staff to use short, clear sentences when communicating. A staff member asked a person if they had their packed lunch. The person responded they understood by giving a thumbs up sign, and then went to the kitchen to get their lunch. Other people understood and enjoyed humour and we observed staff and people engaging in these exchanges.

Relatives said they could visit the service at any time. Several relatives said their family member came to stay with them at weekends and staff assisted with transport for people who needed this.

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.

Information was shared with staff during handover regarding any changes to people’s health or care needs. Staff told us any relevant information was also shared with the providers day service that people attended.

The service worked with other health professionals involved in people’s care. They made referrals to health professionals as appropriate. Staff knew people’s care and support needs and there were processes to ensure people had access to health care services. Staff or family members accompanied people to medical appointments to help advocate on their behalf. Relatives were positive about how people’s care was monitored. A relative told us, “Staff always call me if he goes to hospital. They keep on top of all his medical appointments.”

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

The provider was aware of their responsibilities to ensure people with a disability, or sensory loss received information in a way they could understand it and support with their communication.People’s communication needs had been assessed and were detailed in their care and support records.

Aspects of people’s care was provided in a way people could understand. There were photographs of staff displayed to show which staff were supporting them each day. Picture symbols were displayed around the home with some key information. Picture cards were used to help people go food shopping and to choose meals for the weekly menu.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

The service used keyworker meetings as a formal way of regularly involving people in their care. However, these had not occurred for everyone on a regular basis. Relatives said they were not formally asked for their views or feedback about the service. One person told us, “I am not impressed by the National Autistic Society (the provider) as they just ask you to sign forms and don’t really ask for your feedback.”

Although relatives generally felt involved in people’s care there were mixed views about how well the service communicated with them to ensure they were fully involved. Comments included, “Communication has got better recently, keeping me in touch with how he is”, “Communication has got worse. It has been going downhill the last year” and “They do need to work a bit on communication.”

The provider had a process to investigate and respond to any concerns or complaints. Relatives said they felt confident to raise any concerns about their family members care. A relative told us, “If I had a concern I would contact the manager or his social worker. I can do this as staff are good.” Another relative commented, “If there was a concern I would go to their keyworker or the manager. I did make a complaint 2 or so years ago and it was addressed.”

Relatives told us staff had acted on their feedback when they had raised concerns around home visit records. Relatives said when their family member went on a home visit there used to be a diary to record what people had done. They told us this changed to being asked to tick a list of questions about the person’s mood which they did not find helpful. As a result of feeding this back to staff, it was agreed to no longer use these questionnaires.

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

There were no barriers to people with a learning disability or autism being referred or admitted to the service. There was a clear admissions criteria and people’s needs were assessed before moving into the service. People would only not be admitted if the provider had assessed staff did not have the appropriate skills to provide safe care to an individual.

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 were made aware of the provider’s equality and diversity policy at induction. Leaders and staff were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage people using the service and took action when needed. Staff supported people to go out in the community, take part in social activities and to make referrals to health service.

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’s care plans contained information about people’s planned outcomes and the support needed for these to be achieved. However, there was some variance in detail about people’s goals and how they were working towards them.

Some people had been consulted about their end of life and information was available about their understanding of death, treatments and being in pain. However, for other people the end of life section in their care plan was incomplete. It was unclear if this was because the person and their advocate had not been approached to give their views of if they had and did not wish a discussion at this point in time..