Blackberry Hill

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 remained 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. During our visits staff were observed to be providing people with care that was personal to them. Care and support plans were individual and gave information about each person’s likes, dislikes, communication and preferred routines. One relative told us, “Things are person led, they do not expect [relative] to do anything [relative] doesn’t want to, all well matched to [relative’s] needs”.

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 worked collaboratively to meet people’s needs and ensured consistent support. People were supported to access healthcare when needed, and professionals spoke positively about staff responsiveness. Key worker arrangements and regular meetings supported continuity and oversight of people’s outcomes.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People received information in ways that met their communication needs. Staff used communication books, PECS, gesture, Makaton and visual choices to support understanding. Relatives confirmed staff explained things well and adapted communication appropriately. One relative told us, “They pitch things at the right level, they give [relative] choices what [relative] would like to do”.

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 were supported to express views and be involved in decisions about their care. House meetings, key worker sessions and informal conversations helped gather feedback. Staff interviews showed a culture where people’s preferences were respected, for example supporting people to choose staff or decide how to spend their time.

Most relatives felt involved. Although 1 relative felt communication could be improved others told us, “No issues arise that we wouldn’t know about, they contact us regularly” and “I speak regularly and I’m involved all the time.” Two families told us they received newsletters and others told us they received regular updates about activities and events, helping them remain well informed. Relatives told us they knew who to speak to if they had any concerns. 1 relative told us, “Yes, if I raise an issue, someone is there to listen”. All relatives knew who to speak to if they had any concerns.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People had equitable access to support, activities and the community. Staff made reasonable adjustments based on individual needs, including supervision levels, mobility equipment, and communication support. Staff had advocated for people to ensure their health needs were met, to reduce the impact of barriers to care. This included making arrangements with medical professionals to ensure people could access appointments in ways that met their specific needs. For 1 person who found clinic visits distressing, staff arranged home GP visits, which their relative described as reassuring. For another person, a professional told us staff had called ahead of their visit to the emergency department meaning they were able to prepare for the persons visit. This meant people had positive experiences, good outcomes and their disability did not prevent them from accessing the support they needed.

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.People experienced positive and consistent outcomes. Relatives described the service as caring and inclusive. One relative told us, “They treat everybody equally, I’ve not detected anyone being treated differently”. Staff spoke about people respectfully and ensured equal opportunities to engage in routines and activities matching their interests and abilities.

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. Care plans detailed people’s outcomes and people were supported to plan for the future. Staff supported people to maintain skills and independence, such as preparing drinks, assisting with personal care tasks or participating in community activities.

The service had recently begun work with people and families on advance planning. Relatives confirmed involvement in reviews and future planning, including discussions about long‑term goals and end‑of‑life wishes.