Highfield Care Home

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.

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.

Staff provided people with person centred care and knew people well. For example, staff knew what people liked to drink, who liked to get up late and who preferred quieter spaces and people were provided with this support. We observed staff spending time with a person newer to the service, chatting to them to in a relaxed way about what they liked and enjoyed.

Staff told us, “I do feel we have the information about people and how to support them, we have the care plans which I read and are shared with us for any new people. However, I can also speak to the nurse if I am concerned or worried about anybody.”

People were positive about how they were supported. One person said, “The staff are all nice. I feel looked after. They wash my hair, do my fingernails. A chiropodist comes, that’s good.”

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.

Staff provided consistent levels of support to people. When new staff started at the service they told us they felt supported by more experienced staff to get to know people. Staff were allocated people to support each day, so staff knew who they were supporting and people knew who was supporting them.

The provider was engaged with the local healthcare community. Staff worked alongside local partners such as the GP practice and specialist community nurses to provide people with joined up care and support.

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

People’s communication needs were assessed and there was information for staff on how people communicated. Staff were aware of the support some people needed to communicate. Where people needed information shared with them verbally, we saw staff provided this support. Some people communicated using gestures or facial movements and staff understood this.

We observed staff supporting people to understand information in nonverbal ways when people needed this support.

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.

People and their relatives told us they felt listened to when they had complained or raised concerns. Appropriate action had been taken when concerns had been raised and the person kept informed. One relative told us, “[My relative] would be the first to complain. I don’t think they can do any more.”

There were regular surveys for people. A recent survey regarding mealtime experienced had been completed. Some people had raised areas where improvement was needed. Staff had acted in response to the concerns raised. A follow up survey was being planned to check if the action taken had led to improved satisfaction.

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

The service worked with a network of healthcare partners to ensure people had access to care, support and treatment. People were supported to have regular reviews of their health and welfare through staff working in partnership with other organisations. Staff facilitated access to services where people needed this support.

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.

There was an activity co-ordinator at the service who arranged both groups’ activities in communal areas as well as spending time with people on a 1:1 basis for people who remained in their room or chose not to engage in group activities. People told us they activities co-ordinator would come and spend time chatting with them. When people went out into the community for activities staff arranged accessible transport so people with mobility needs could participate.

The service continued to be accessible for people including people who used wheelchairs and adapted chairs. There was signage in place to support people to find their way around the service and people’s rooms had signs. The provider was in the planning stages of redecorating the service and were considering how they could make the service more accessible to people living with dementia. They told us about dementia friendly research regarding colours and zoning they were using when planning to decoration.

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.

Where people did not want to be resuscitated, in the event their heart or breathing stopped, this information was available to staff. Staff worked with healthcare professionals to ensure there were appropriate medicines in place for people when they were nearing the end of their life, to ensure people were supported with pain or any possible distress.

There was information about people’s plans and choices where people had made decisions on what treatment and care they wanted in the future.