Homebeech

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

Requires improvement: This meant people’s needs were not always met.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care.

This service scored 54 (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.

Care was not always person-centred and promoted people’s dignity, privacy and human rights. Care plans did not always contain enough guidance to support staff to manage people’s known risks. We found some examples where details around how to manage a person’s distress were lacking detail and did not follow good practice guidance around person centred practices. People’s end of life wishes was not always explored or person centred. Some care plans did not have any end of life wishes, indication this had been discussed or why it was not appropriate to discuss with people. This meant people’s wishes at the end of their life were not known or may not be met.

The provider understood the diverse health needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Some staff knew people well and understood how to support people. The manager showed a good understanding of how to meet the needs of people living with dementia. There appeared to be good working relationships with other health care professionals and the service supported regular ward rounds with the local doctor’s surgery.

The provider had systems for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

The manager made themselves accessible and families told us they felt able to speak to them about any issues or concerns and felt confident that this matter should be addressed. The provider had held resident and family meetings and, whilst these were not always well attended, worked with people to seek feedback in relation to activities. We discussed with the manager the use of more effective communication tools for some people, which would enhance their ability to better participate and feedback ideas.

Staff and leaders did not always actively seek information about how to better support people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. Some people’s experiences and outcomes were hindered by a need for better planning of activities. The service had an activity planner, and this was clear, but it was generalised and the timetable did not include a more comprehensive planner that would be required for people with learning disabilities. For example, one person enjoyed sensory box activities but there was no assessment of sensory needs, and no time or facilities were allocated for these activities.

The activity team worked to ensure people with limited mobility, or who chose to stay in their bedrooms, had access to activities and stimulation. The activity team were able to efficiently engage some people in activities such as crafts and board games. Activities were primarily taking place on site but plans were being considered to look at trips out and support people to access more facilities outside of the service.