Selly Park

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 68 (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.

Following the introduction of an electronic care planning system, the registered manager worked closely with staff to ensure care records were personalised and provided staff with information not only regarding people’s health and care needs, but their social, cultural and emotional needs as well.

People were supported by care staff, many of whom had worked at the service for several years and who knew them well. A resident of the day process (where a person is put at the centre of the staff's attention for a 24-hour period, ensuring care plans are reviewed and gives people the opportunity to discuss their care needs) was in use involving staff from across the home. Activities that were of interest to people had been introduced and the activities co-ordinator worked alongside staff and knew people well. Residents’ meetings took place providing people with the opportunity to share their likes and dislikes and discuss the number of activities and the living environment and the changes that were being planned.

One person told us, “[Activities coordinator] does her best to put things on. Today it was bingo, yesterday was exercises and there’s a singer tomorrow. Once a month there’s also an outing to the pub.” A relative told us, “They [care staff] always keep [person] involved in activities – [activities co-ordinators name] is brilliant and [person] gets on really well with them.”

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 service worked with healthcare professionals, for example from the speech and language and tissue viability teams to ensure people’s care and treatment was delivered in a way that met their assessment needs in a co-ordinated and responsive manner.

Relatives told us staff shared any concerns with them about their loved ones needs and kept them informed of the actions taken in response to this.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

More work was needed to ensure people’s communication needs were being met in line with the Accessible information Standard (a standard that requires care providers meet the specific information and communication needs of service users). Some people’s communication plans required further work to ensure staff were provided with the necessary information to communicate effectively with all people living at the service, particularly those who were unable to speak for themselves. For example, staff told us they relied on relatives to sometimes assist in communicating with a person. We discussed this with the registered manager who confirmed they would look into addressing these concerns.

Whilst we saw the registered manager had made some progress in this area such as ensuring the monthly newsletter was printed in people’s own language, further work was required to ensure communication was accessible to all.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support, but complaints records failed to provide evidence of investigations and evidence of lessons learnt.

People told us they were confident that any concerns or complaints they raised would be listened to and addressed appropriately. However, we identified inappropriate wording within the record of 1complaint. We raised this with the registered manager, who acknowledged the issue.

We also found that, where complaints had been received, records did not always demonstrate how concerns had been investigated and resolved. There was limited documented evidence of actions taken in response to complaints, and learning outcomes were not consistently recorded. This made it difficult to establish how lessons learned had been identified, shared and used to make improvements within the service.

People told us they felt listened to by the registered manager and her staff. One person told us, “[Manager’s name] door is always open if I want to talk to her” and another said, “I get on well with the manager – she’s so good. I like [manager’s name].”

Surveys took place gathering people’s views of the service. People were also provided with the opportunity to raise any concerns they may have in monthly resident’s meetings, which were chaired by a a person living at the home. They told us, “These meetings give us the chance to voice any concerns on the day to day running of the home.”

We saw during 1 residents meeting, a person raised their concerns regarding the appropriateness of some of the decoration in the home. Others had voiced they were happy with the areas raised. At the next meeting people spoke positively of the changes that had taken place in terms of redecoration.

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

People were supported to access the care, treatment and support they needed in a timely manner. Staff worked with people and relevant professionals to help ensure their health and wellbeing needs were met.

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.

Management and staff were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage different groups of people who used their service. For example, staff told us about the life history of a particular person and the importance of their cultural heritage and what this meant for them.

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.

As part of the care planning process, people were supported to make informed choices about their care and had been consulted regarding their future care and these conversations had been recorded. These conversations included, where appropriate, conversations regarding people’s end of life wishes.