Calton House Limited

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 64 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

We did not see evidence of people being encouraged to develop their independence or widen their experiences. As previously evidenced, when people had expressed a wish to vary their routines this had not been supported. One person told us they often ate early stating; “I sometimes go to bed too early. When [member of staff] is on, I have tea at 4 and then go to my room and end up going to bed.”

However, care plans were reviewed regularly, and people were involved in the process. Relatives were positive about the support provided. One told us; “Their communication is better with the staff than with me as they understand everything. They seem to know what [pronoun] is saying.”

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.

Most staff worked across different supported living settings. However, each accommodation setting had a team leader, this supported delivery of consistent care. Care managers had oversight of groups of supported living settings and knew each one well. People knew who care managers were and said they saw them frequently.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People had tenancy agreements, these had not been provided in an easy read format and some people were unaware of them. A relative told us; “The tenancy agreement, I don’t really know about. I’ve no idea.” This demonstrated a lack of commitment to supporting people to develop a sense of ownership for their own homes.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

Staff told us of occasions when they had supported people to raise complaints, however these were not consistently recorded on the service’s complaints log. The registered manager told us this was because the complaints referred to the housing provision and was therefore outside the service’s remit. However, providers of supported living services should advocate for people on matters relating to their accommodation arrangements.

One person had made a verbal complaint in October 2024. This had been recorded as an incident but not as a complaint. There was no record of any action taken on the incident log. The person told us they had not had any feedback relating to the complaint. This was not in line with the service policy which stated, ‘All complaints are responded to in writing within 28 days of being made.’

Staff advocated on people’s behalf to try and make sure they could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Reasonable adjustments were made for people who needed them. As previously evidenced , when a bathroom had been adapted this had not been completed in a timely manner resulting in one person having difficulty accessing washing facilities. Staff told us they had repeatedly raised this as a concern to the housing provider which demonstrated staff were advocating on behalf of people.

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 told us how they worked with health professionals to support people to attend health appointments. If people found visiting surgeries and dentists difficult, arrangements were made for professionals to visit people in their own homes.

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.

At the time of the inspection the service was not supporting anyone at the end of life. Staff had received training in providing end of life support.