Ann 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 service 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 service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices.

People received personalised support from staff who knew them well. The registered manager told us, “We know the people we support very well. Having a personalised service is important to me.”

Positive behaviour support plans were personalised and provided staff with guidance on how to support people effectively. There was a focus on positive reinforcement, respect, safety and wellbeing.

The service was working with people to learn how they could always access their preferred activities.

We discussed with the registered manager the need for care plans to always reflect people’s individual, cultural, lifestyle, or identity preferences.

The service 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 had a good understanding of the needs of people with a learning disability and/or autistic people and had completed training in this area, including Oliver McGowan training.

Staff understood the importance of working closely with a range of other agencies including GP practices, social workers and advocates. One independent advocate told us, “I always find the management team very supportive with me and understanding of my role.” One health and social care professional told us, “I visit the service regularly. They are very proactive with any queries they may have.”

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

Staff knew and met people’s communication needs and provided information in appropriate formats. We observed staff communicating with people using their communication preferences.

Staff understood their duties around General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and confidential information was stored securely.

The care planning system used by the service was not always easy to navigate. However, people using the service felt they were involved in care planning, and staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs and where to find information.

Some relatives felt staff could improve how they communicate updates with them.

The service involved people using the service in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. However, we received mixed feedback from relatives about how they were involved in people’s care.

One relative told us, “They don't always let me know about appointments or ring and update me.” Another relative told us, “I don't get newsletters or invites to meetings. They don't inform me of any appointments, and communication about what [person] is doing could be a lot better.” Another relative told us, “Staff communicate well with me and ring me if there have been any incidents.”

The service had systems in place to enable people and their relatives to give feedback, share ideas or make complaints.

There was an up-to-date complaints policy in place.

The service had recently conducted surveys with people, relatives and staff, and were in the processes of planning how to make improvements from this feedback.

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

The service had systems in place to ensure people had regular access to medical professionals. For example, specialist health and social care partners visited the service regularly to review people’s needs.

There was a communal garden people could access. People had been involved in creating the garden design and growing vegetables.

While the premises were secured with coded locks, there were arrangements in place, where required, to ensure people could have free access to communal areas.

The building environment felt clinical in nature and lacked the personalized, homely touches required to promote a comfortable and welcoming atmosphere. The registered manager told us they had thought about this and was considering how to create a more homely environment for people to live.

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 and managers expressed a commitment to ensuring people did not face discrimination and had equal opportunities within and outside the home. Staff had received equality and diversity training.

People that had raised issues about inequality mostly felt they were listened to and understood, and appropriate action was taken.

Where people had sensory needs, staff worked with them to ensure these were met. One person told us, “I have just got (sensory equipment) and am just waiting for it to be risk assessed which won’t take long.”

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

Group meetings took place where people could discuss their goals and aspirations and how to achieve them. People had keyworkers and access to other professionals where they could discuss plans for the future.

While nobody living at Ann House required end life care, the service had good links with local services that could be contacted to assist in supporting people near the end of life.