Anglebury Court

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 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 provider 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.

People’s care plans and risk assessments reflected their individual needs and preferences. These were updated regularly with clear guidance for staff to follow regarding the changes that had been made.

Staff and relatives told us people were able to express their views, we saw care plans included details of people’s individual communication methods.

People and relatives told us they had built positive relationships with staff, who knew how each person liked their support to be delivered. Staff said they had learnt what was important to each person, so ensured their preferences were respected.

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.

The manager and staff team told us they worked closely with a range of other health and social care professionals. This included timely referrals being made to community nurses and occupational therapists. They said established relationships meant advice about a person’s needs could be requested directly, often without the need for a lengthy referral process.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

We saw people’s communication needs and preferences were clearly recorded in care plans. Staff told us, “It is important to talk clearly to a resident and be patient with a response as well as ensuring they have the relevant aids that support communication”.

The service met the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard. Since 2016 all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard. The Accessible Information Standard tells organisations what they have to do to help ensure people with a disability or sensory loss, and in some circumstances, their carers, get information in a way they can understand it. It also says that people should get the support they need in relation to communication.The manager told us they were able to provide information in a format to suite the person’s needs, such as different font sizes or different languages. They said they always discussed the person’s communication needs at the initial assessment and thereafter within reviews of people’s care.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The provider supported people to share feedback and ideas through service user meetings and how to raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

Meetings were held with relatives, one relative said, “I find the meetings informative and gives me an opportunity to share ideas and make suggestions which are welcomed.”

People and relatives told us they knew how to complain. They felt confident in raising concerns with management or individual keyworkers. One relative said, “I am comfortable speaking to any of the staff and am confident I would be listened to”.

The service had an up-to-date complaint policy and a robust complaints procedure in place.Records showed complaints received had been managed in line with the provider’s policy. We fedback to the management team that staff told us they were not always informed of the outcome of any concerns they had raised. Whilst it is not always possible to provide detail of any action being taken, the management team acknowledged they would meet with all staff to reassure them of the process.

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

People told us they received care and support, which was accessible, timely, and considered their individual needs.For example, referrals to specialist services such as physiotherapy (PT) and occupational therapy (OT) were completed promptly. Staff supported people to overcome communication or mobility barriers. This ensured they could attend and engage in healthcare appointments and follow up on advice or treatment plans. Specialised equipment was in place to enable people to attend appointments including hoists, wheelchairs and access to mobility vehicles. These processes supported people to stay healthy and receive timely care from professionals, reducing any barriers to access.

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.

The manager and staff worked to ensure people received the support they were entitled to, and which supported their rights in line with the Equality Act (2010). Records showed people’s support was personalised and took account of all aspects of their life.

Staff training had included equality, diversity, and human rights, and their practice was checked through regular spot checks, supervisions, and ongoing support. Policies and procedures were aligned with current equality legislation, ensuring both people and staff were treated fairly, consistently, and with dignity. Staff told us they felt confident delivering care that was inclusive, respectful, and person-centred.

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.

At the time of this assessment, no one was receiving end of life care. However, the manager told us plans for the future would be considered early, with the person and their family members as appropriate. Not everyone had information in their care plans around future planning. This could put people at risk of having their future care needs overlooked or not receiving care in line with their wishes and preferences. The manager told us they would ensure this was rectified for each person.

Staff received training in End of Life Care.