Attlee Court

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 75 (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.

Care was delivered to people in a person-centred way. Most care plans were detailed and centred around people's needs, but we found examples where records of care did not reflect the care being provided. For example, when people declined personal care there was no evidence of how many more times staff had offered this; meal intake was not always recorded for people who were not nutritionally at risk; and activities were not always recorded. We discussed this with the registered manager and they took action and told us additional actions would be taken to improve overall recording of care offered and delivered.

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 registered manager and staff were knowledgeable about people’s health needs and knew which services were available if people required a referral to other healthcare professionals, to address any changes in their needs. During our visits, we observed visiting healthcare professionals at the service supporting people in various areas. In our conversations with a visiting professional, they told us there was good joined up work.

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

We observed people being given access to choices in a way that was accessible to them, and to encourage their independence.

People’s communication needs were assessed and care plans were put in place. These needs were met and reviewed to support people in line with the Accessible Information Standard. Staff confirmed they supported people to access and understand information relevant to them.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Accidents and incidents were being recorded, patterns analysed, and actions taken.

There had been several falls at the home. We reviewed the provider’s systems in place to assess risks, plan interventions, record incidents and train staff. We found that people who were at risk of falls had appropriate risk assessments in place, equipment to manage the risks and had been referred to appropriate healthcare professionals. The provider had acquired additional technology to prevent and manage risks of falls and told us they had plans in place to extend the use of this new technology. Staff had received additional training from local healthcare professionals around falls prevention and management

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

In our conversations with staff and the registered manager, and review of information, we did not find evidence of concerns in relation to people using the service being discriminated against or not having access to the care they required.

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 living with dementia or long-term health conditions had their care plan according with their needs, and staff knew how to provide this care.

Staff had received equality and diversity training and understood the importance of ensuring people were not subject to inequality or discrimination due to their age or health needs. A staff member told us how they focused on people’s individual needs when providing care. Their comments included, “We do things according to the needs of the person.”

Staff and the registered manager advocated for people when liaising with health and social care services to ensure their views and needs were listened to.

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 our inspection, there was nobody actively receiving end of life care but some people were on the palliative care pathway. We found care plans were in place to consider people’s wishes and preferences in relation to this area of care. Staff liaised with other professionals to ensure anticipatory medicines were in place when required.

The registered manager and staff knew how to support people at the end of their lives and training had been provided to staff.