Leggyfield Court (Care Outlook)

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 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 choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People expressed they had choice around the care and the support they were provided and led decisions about their care. This was generally reflected in their care documents and staff respected people’s choices and preferences. One person said, “I tell them what I want to do and they respect this.” People could choose the times their care visits were made, and because the provider was based on site, staff were available and could be flexible to accommodate changes when they happened.

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.

For example, when people needed to access other services, they were supported to do so. The registered manager liaised with professionals including the mental health team when needed, obtaining their professional guidance to improve people’s outcomes. Staff had built a positive professional relationship with the local health professional services. People’s protected characteristics including disabilities and religious beliefs were captured and supported in their care plans. There was flexibility around care visit times and people told us they could choose when they received support. When people needed to move to other services the registered manager worked collaboratively with them to share appropriate information which promoted a smooth transition for the person.

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

Staff communicated with people in a clear manner that supported their needs. One person said, “I can understand staff easily and they understand me.” People who had specific communication needs had these met with guidance in care documents for staff to follow. Large print format documents were available if people needed them, there were large print books in a library area for people to read. One person said, “Due to my sight I struggle to read documents, but the staff support me by reading them to me.” Staff had received training around the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and understood their role in this area. One staff member said, “People’s information should only be shared with others like healthcare professionals when they need to know. Like if we need to call the emergency services or their GP and not just anyone.”

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 expressed they knew how to share their feedback and described the registered manager and senior staff as being accessible. During our assessment we observed the registered manager interacting with people who came to the registered manager’s office to discuss their care. People said the staff who supported them listened to their feedback and supported them to share feedback or raise concerns if they needed to.

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

People had a variety of activities they could take part in, some of which staff facilitated. People told us they had opportunities to engage in social events with each other. One person said, “We have a pub night on a Friday, we decided to have our own bar.” Whilst the building was not the provider’s responsibility, they worked with the building provider and healthcare partners to ensure people’s environments meet their needs and removed accessibility barriers. For example, where needed automatic doors were fitted to people’s flats supporting them to enter and leave independently.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care and support and in response to this.

People with protected characteristics had individualised care plans with details of how to meet their needs focusing on preferences and wants. People generally described outcomes as positive, explaining staff supported them in certain aspects of their life but also promoted and encouraged independence. Describing people’s outcomes, a professional said, “Staff are proactive in ensuring that people receive appropriate care and are willing to assist in facilitating the best possible outcomes.” A consistent team of staff, who knew people well and had received training in equality and diversity, provided care in a respectful manner understanding differences between their needs.

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.

Whilst the provider was not supporting anyone at end of life at the time of our assessment, the registered manager supported people to plan for changes in their care needs. They worked with the person and relevant professionals to identify and address changes in support, helping them make decisions and stay in control.