Stride East

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 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 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff 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.However, more work was needed to ensure a person-centred approach to care records within the service. Staff provided care that was person centred and they knew people well. Care plans were in place, and were written respectfully, containing person centred details. But gaps were found in certain areas. For example, people’s routines which were important to them were not detailed in the care plans, past medical conditions were not explained to ensure staff had guidance on when to act and not all risks to people had been assessed. Daily notes lacked person centred details and were task orientated in many examples. While people told us they were happy with the care and that staff knew them well, we could not be assured from the records that care was provided in line with people’s preferences and in a person-centred way. The provider had highlighted from their own governance systems that care plans were an area for improvement and had begun to address this with staff through meetings and supervisions. However, more time was needed to see improvement and ensure good practice with record keeping was embedded and sustained.

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. Staff worked with health and social care professionals when people needed additional support. This included arranging appointments, seeking advice from GPs and working with community mental health professionals. To support people with continuity of care, staff completed handovers at each shift and used the electronic care system to highlight important information. Staff said this helped them understand changes in people’s health, presentation and support needs. When possible, efforts had been made to provide a regular staffing team.

The provider supplied appropriate information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.People’s care records described how they communicated and included details about the support they needed to make informed choices. Staff used clear and respectful language, planned meetings to discuss changes within the service and used visual prompts where this helped people understand important messages about their care.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. People could share their views through residents’ meetings, key-worker discussions and a suggestion box. A complaints process was in place, and compliments had been collected and analysed by the provider. People told us staff regularly asked for their views and ideas about improving the service. People also said they could approach staff if they had concerns.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People were supported to access healthcare appointments, community facilities and activities that were important to them. People could leave the service independently where appropriate, visit local community groups and maintain contact with family and friends. The service provided accessible communal areas and a secure garden. Adaptations and equipment were available for people with mobility needs, including hoists, wheelchairs and profiling beds.

Staff actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. However, more work was needed to evidence positive outcomes of people. Staff knew people well and supported their independence. However, records did not consistently show how staff supported people to achieve equitable outcomes. For example, care plans recorded goals but did not show the actions taken to help people reach them.

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.Staff promoted reablement in the service, working with people to understand their goals for the future. While end of life care was not the usual level of support people required in this service, the deputy manager and staff showed knowledge and understanding of their responsibility in this area should this be needed in the future.