Hampshire Head Office Brockhurst Rd

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 71 (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 placed people at the centre of their care and aimed to ensure support was tailored to individual needs, preferences, and choices. Support plans reflected each person’s goals, life history, and routines. Staff used this information to deliver personalised care that helped people live the lives they wanted. People chose their daily routines and were encouraged to pursue what mattered most to them.

We observed warm, attentive interactions between staff and people, with staff responding in ways that showed familiarity and respect. People told us staff listened and acted when something wasn’t right. One person said, “Staff support me with cooking, putting washing on, tidying up, shopping, appointments and medication. I like them all. They are funny.” A relative shared, “I think they treat him great. They have a lot of patience around him and his needs, and they know how to support him.”

However, some care plans and risk assessments for people with physical health needs were not always detailed enough to guide staff effectively. For example, they did not consistently outline when someone with epilepsy or diabetes may need staff support. Despite these shortfalls, the overall approach remained person-centred, and staff were committed to providing care that helped people feel understood, involved, and well supported. The provider acknowledged these shortfalls and were committed to make improvements.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of the people they supported and maintained strong links with the local community and external professionals. Care was flexible, coordinated, and designed to promote choice, continuity, and independence.

Care records demonstrated staff communicated effectively with health and social care partners. They made timely referrals and worked closely with other providers to ensure people received joined-up support. A relative shared a positive example of how the service supported continuity of care, particularly during changes in a person’s health or needs.

People were supported to be as active as they wanted, and staff encouraged engagement with the wider community. A healthcare professional told us, “Staff at Hampshire Head Office Brockhurst Rd encourage and guide patients to maintain independence… staff have a good understanding of the people they support.” This partnership approach helped ensure people received consistent, high-quality care tailored to their needs.

The provider did not always supply accurate, accessible, and up-to-date information tailored to individual needs.

The provider had relevant policies, procedures, and staff training to support communication needs. Although staff followed people’s communication preferences and incorporated them into the support plans, but the application of this support varied across the service.

While some documents such as the service user guide, tenancy agreements and hospital passports were presented in easy read with simple language and imagery, other important documents were not. For example, key documents, such as consent forms, mutual agreements and support plans, were not consistently available in accessible formats.

This inconsistent approach meant the provider could not demonstrate full compliance with the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The AIS sets out legal requirements for health and social care providers to ensure people with a disability, impairment, or sensory loss receive information they can understand and the communication support they need. It is designed to ensure people are empowered to make informed choices and participate fully in their care.

Although we saw evidence of some accessible communication, the lack of clarity and consistency in core documents, particularly those related to consent, care and treatment, risked undermining people’s ability to make informed decisions about their care and treatment. The provider acknowledged these shortfalls and were committed to make improvements

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback, raise concerns, and contribute ideas about their care and support. Staff involved people in decision-making and shared outcomes and changes that followed.

The provider facilitated regular tenants’ meetings, giving people a platform to express views and influence service delivery. Records showed these meetings aimed to bring people together to have "one voice" and shape what happened in the service. People chose the discussion topics, which included matters important to them, such as privacy, respect, and daily living arrangements.

People told us they felt confident speaking up. When asked what they would do if they were unhappy one person said, “I tell staff”.

Leaders reviewed concerns and complaints and took action where needed. They ensured this learning from concerns and complaints was shared and used to improve people’s experience of care.

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

The provider involved family members or advocates, where appropriate, to support decision-making and ensure people’s needs were fully understood. Staff used hospital passports (personalised documents that include important health and communication information) to help hospital staff deliver safe and consistent care if someone was admitted. This supported continuity of care and ensured key information was available in emergencies.

Staff supported people to attend healthcare appointments and followed up on advice or treatment plans. Leaders told us people received help to access a range of services, including GPs, dentists, mental health support, and specialist clinics. These arrangements helped people stay healthy and receive timely care from the right professionals.

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.

Staff completed equality and diversity training to help them understand how personal characteristics, culture, and life experiences could affect people’s care. The provider had a clear equality and diversity policy in place, which referred to the protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 and offered practical guidance to promote inclusive care.

People’s support plans included information about their identity, background, and what mattered to them. This allowed staff to tailor support respectfully and in line with people’s wishes. While not everyone chose to share this information, the opportunity to do so was consistently available through regular reviews.

We observed interactions where people received care that respected their individuality and staff promoted a culture of inclusion and dignity, which helped people feel safe and confident in expressing who they were. This inclusive approach contributed to positive outcomes and experiences for people using the service.

The provider supported people to plan for the future in ways that reflected their individual needs, wishes, and circumstances. Staff respected people’s right to make decisions about their lives and helped them do so at their own pace.

While some people had declined to discuss future planning due to the sensitive nature of some of the topics and personal circumstances, we saw evidence that staff had made appropriate attempts to offer these conversations. In one case, a person had been supported to make advance decisions during an end-of-life care pathway. Although they were no longer receiving end-of-life care, a valid DNACPR (Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation) order remained in place, which reflected multidisciplinary input and the person’s own views and wishes.

Another person had been supported to make future plans related to their learning and career. They told us this made them feel “happy” and gave them something meaningful to work towards. This showed how the provider encouraged people to look forward and take ownership of their personal goals.

People had the choice to make plans for the future in ways that were relevant and important to them. Staff recognised that future planning was not only about health or care but also about aspirations, purpose, and quality of life.