Tapton Grove

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 good. At this assessment the rating has changed to Requires Improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

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 consistently deliver care that was fully person-centred or responsive to people’s individual needs.People’s care plans did not always reflect their full range of physical, mental, emotional, and social needs. Plans were often not up to date, and in some cases, lacked the depth needed to provide holistic, personalised support.People gave mixed feedback about their involvement in care planning. While some individuals told us they had contributed to their care plans, others said they had not, and did not feel involved in reviewing or updating them. This meant people were not always engaged in shared decision-making or supported to shape care and treatment around their goals and preferences.There were also gaps in helping people understand their condition, treatment options, and next steps. Some people said they did not always receive clear advice or explanations when needed.Whilst the provider was in the process of reviewing and improving people’s care plan at the time of our assessment the issues limited people’s ability to feel informed, involved, and in control of their own care, and reduced the service’s ability to adapt support to people’s changing needs over time.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood and responded to the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities. As a result, care was not always joined-up, flexible, or supportive of continuity and choice.People’s care and treatment were not always delivered in a way that fully met their assessed needs or followed recommendations from wider health and care professionals. For example, recommendations from multi-disciplinary teams (MDT) were not always followed. However, on many occasions, people were referred to other agencies such as speech and language therapists or dietitians, and their advice was acted upon.A lack of clear systems to coordinate care for people placed out of area also affected continuity. For instance, one person told us they had not seen their community worker for over two years, and their case had not been transferred to local services. This meant they missed out on ongoing support, and their plans to move on were delayed.These issues showed that care was not always well joined up or planned in a way that helped people make progress or move smoothly onto other services.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.Although there was evidence that alternative formats such as large print and easy read were available, and people with sensory or cognitive needs were supported to access information in suitable ways, some people told us that information shared with them was not always clearly communicated. This included details about their care, routines, or changes within the service, which led to confusion for some individuals.There was limited evidence to demonstrate that information shared with families or carers was provided consistently or proactively. Relatives we spoke to said they had minimal contact with the service and mainly found out about changes to their relative’s care from the relatives themselves. Key information displayed around the service, such as signage and noticeboards, was up to date and accessible. Although reasonable adjustments were made to provide accessible formats, the provider had not ensured that communication was always clear, timely and effective across all aspects of the service.

People’s experiences of being listened to and involved in decisions about their care were inconsistent. While there were some systems in place to capture and respond to feedback, these were not always used effectively or consistently across the service.The provider told us that accessible information standards were in place and supported by a policy held within the activity hub. They also displayed information using symbols and written text across the units to promote awareness among staff and residents. Residents' meetings were held, with action points shared and followed up by the manager. Feedback from these meetings had led to some changes, such as adjustments to menus and activity planning.However, feedback from people and staff indicated that people's views were not always actively sought or acted on. Some people told us they had been asked for their opinions or involved in decisions, while others said this had not been their experience. Surveys were used in the early stages of managing the service, but there was limited evidence of this approach being embedded or sustained.Some staff said they did not always feel their concerns or complaints were followed up by management. This included instances where feedback about people's care or issues raised by staff were not acknowledged or responded to. Similarly, some care plans had been created without clear evidence of consent or consultation, which limited people’s ability to be involved in planning their own care.Staff were not always able to listen effectively to people due to the frequent use of agency staff and staffing pressures. This sometimes affected their ability to recognise and respond to individuals’ unique communication styles or preferences. As a result, people did not always feel heard or supported to express their views in a meaningful way.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.The provider had policies in place to promote equality, diversity, and inclusion, and staff received training to support these principles. The service was physically accessible for people with mobility and sensory impairments, ensuring that environmental barriers were minimised.People from different backgrounds and with varying needs were able to access the service without reported barriers. Individual needs related to culture, religion, language, and disability were generally respected and supported.Some people expressed that not all staff knew them well enough, which sometimes limited the staff’s ability to fully understand and meet their individual needs.Overall, the provider demonstrated a commitment to equitable access.

Staff and leaders 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 and leaders demonstrated a commitment to promoting equity in experiences and outcomes. No one we spoke with reported feeling excluded or treated unfairly. All people had equal access to care and treatment, regardless of their background or support needs.The service promoted an inclusive event such as Pride parties and visible support for people expressing diverse gender identities. Staff supported people’s choices in how they dressed and expressed themselves, ensuring dignity was maintained and peers were informed and accepting.Most staff completed training in equality, diversity, and inclusion .Staff reported feeling confident to support people with diverse needs, and no concerns were raised around unconscious bias or discrimination.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes in a timely and meaningful way. This included planning for end-of-life care, as well as setting and working towards broader personal goals and transitions.End-of-life care planning for some older people was limited or not clearly recorded. While the service had adopted the ReSPECT process, and there were no concerns about how it was used, not all individuals had been engaged in early discussions about future care or end-of-life preferences. 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. For some, these important conversations had not taken place in a proactive or planned way.Some people told us they had not been fully informed or actively involved in discussions about their future care. Goal setting was documented in care records; however, there was often a lack of clarity around how staff would support individuals to work towards and achieve these goals.Family involvement in future planning was variable. While some relatives were engaged, others reported limited communication. For example, in one case, a relative who spent significant time supporting their parent told us there was little evidence of collaboration with staff, or clarity on how the person was being involved in planning their care.Although the service had frameworks in place to support future planning, including one-page profiles and structured care plans, these were not consistently applied across the service. As a result, not everyone was supported to plan ahead in a way that reflected their preferences, promoted meaningful involvement, or upheld their dignity and choice.