Ambleside

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.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to person centred care. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

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.

At our last assessment of this service we found the provider had failed to ensure each person received appropriate person-centred care and treatment that was based on an assessment of their needs and preferences.

At this assessment, we found the provider had made sufficient improvements. However, further time was required to ensure improved practices were embedded and formed an on-going part of the providers daily person-centred care and recording.

We found care plans were written using dignified, respectful and person-centred language, with individualised information about the person and their preferences. However, some care plans had no mention of ReSPECT or DNACPR preferences recorded. The ReSPECT process creates personalised recommendations for a person’s clinical care and treatment in a future emergency in which they are unable to make or express choices.

A new dependency tool was used to assess people’s individual needs and the appropriate staffing requirement to support them. This meant each person had an assessed supervision level of low, medium, high or one-to-one care.

The registered manager reviewed documentation and created a new daily notes template which included, person-centred daily narrative, information about how people spent their day, mobility and general wellbeing. Care monitoring regarding nutrition, fluid intake, activities, visits, medication and end-of-day checks were also included.

We observed staff interactions with people and found they were happy, engaged and involved in activities. We observed family visits and one-to-one-person centred support. New members of staff had brought an improved dynamic to the team.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.