Archived: Mellieha

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and staff knew how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. We saw evidence of involvement from people, relatives and advocates t to ensure they had individual input, and their views, opinions and choices were captured and included in support plans. People’s care plans were individual to them, people had keys to property to allow easy access to and from their home and the ability to access community with safeguards in place and recorded when appropriate.

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. The service had a large internal number of health professionals and positive behavioural teams to support services and people living within them. The service had established and continues to build relationships with professionals and provided and worked with professionals jointly.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Pictorial information was visual and displayed around the service. All people had detailed communication passports, individual communication methods and guidance for staff around effective communication. The service had made individual dining place matts for people living at the service and this information included nutrition needs diet consistency and any equipment required at mealtimes.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. We observed adapted communication and support to people when providing feedback on the service for people about the service. We also observed a complaint made by a person living at the service and this had been recorded, investigated, responded to, shared outcomes with the person living at the service. The people living at the service had involvement from relatives and advocates when appropriate.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. All people who lived at the service were registered with local GP practices. There was involvement from professionals and specialists, including positive behaviour support team both internally and externally. The service worked with advocates and the local authority to share information to remove barriers.

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 received person-centred care that promoted their dignity, privacy and human rights. Staff recognised and responded to changes in individual’s needs. People had active involvement in choosing and partaking in meaningful activities and community.

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. People were encouraged to attend meetings with social workers with support from relatives and advocates to discuss and review current and future needs and services.