Osmund 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 newly registered 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 service demonstrated a genuinely person‑centred approach, consistently taking into account people’s personal beliefs, cultural needs and individual preferences when planning and delivering care. Staff showed good awareness of what mattered to each person, including their religious practices, social interests, personal histories and routines, and incorporated these into day‑to‑day support. One staff member told us, “Getting to know our clients ‘make up ‘and their past lives is paramount- it’s not intrusive it’s showing you care and ‘they matter’.” Care records were noted to be person‑centred, reflecting people’s cultural and religious beliefs and highlighting what was important to them in maintaining identity and wellbeing. Staff also worked effectively with housing partners and local authority colleagues through joint assessments, resident meetings and shared responses to feedback, which supported continuity and holistic care across the scheme.

The service demonstrated care provision and continuity through its proactive engagement with the wider community and local partners. Staff worked closely with health and social care professionals to ensure people received joined‑up support that reflected their assessed needs, with partners speaking positively about the team’s knowledge and ability to advocate on behalf of individuals. People were supported to maintain meaningful links with their community, including attending local churches, accessing community activities and taking part in events within the scheme. Staff, leaders and partners consistently described a coordinated approach that promoted continuity, strengthened community connections and ensured people remained socially engaged and supported in ways that mattered to them.

The service ensured people had access to clear and accessible information about their care by providing a service user guide, which included key details such as how to raise concerns, how to contact the registered manager and senior team, and what people can expect from the service. This guide was tailored to the local service and used as the first point of communication to help people understand processes such as complaints and their rights. Information was made available in formats that met people’s communication needs, in line with the Accessible Information Standard, and staff understood the importance of providing information in ways people could understand and use.
The service had systems to share information with people, families and professionals. However, the way information was stored and shared made it harder for staff to find up‑to‑date details consistently, increasing the risk that important updates could be missed. The provider and registered manager acknowledged the challenges this created for staff when trying to coordinate safe and effective care and spoke of work they were completing to improve this.
 

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 relatives were encouraged to share feedback, and the provider used surveys, resident meetings and informal contact to seek people’s views. People told us staff responded to their feedback and made improvements where possible. The service gathered and acted on feedback relating to activities, catering, shared spaces and safety, helping shape how support was delivered.
People described positive relationships with staff and said staff knew them well. This helped staff involve people in day‑to‑day decisions, such as how they wished to spend their time or who supported them with personal care. Staff also worked closely with families and community partners to ensure people’s experiences informed service development.
Whilst people felt listened to in practice, some care plans lacked detailed written guidance about individuals’ backgrounds or support strategies. This meant opportunities to fully embed people’s preferences and personal histories into written records were sometimes missed.
 

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People were supported to access social activities, community spaces and external opportunities, helping them maintain interests and reduce isolation. Activities included communal events, links with charities and church groups, and external outings such as garden centre trips using the minibus. These opportunities were available to all people and supported wellbeing, community inclusion and choice. A person told us how they were supported, “We do games, play chess and sometimes a bottle of wine. We are also involved with a charity raising money for more entertainments.”
The provider also worked jointly with housing and local authority partners to address environmental and practical barriers to access, responding to feedback about shared spaces and coordinating solutions across agencies. This supported fair and consistent access to the environment and community‑based 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. People generally experienced positive outcomes, and many reported improvements in confidence, wellbeing and day‑to‑day functioning after moving to Osmund Court. Feedback highlighted consistent and timely responses from staff, which helped people feel safe and supported. The offer of meaningful activities and community links helped foster social inclusion and positive emotional wellbeing.
People benefited from consistent staff who knew their preferences well, which supported fairness in how care was delivered and helped ensure experiences were personal and respectful. Residents described reliable support and a sense of being noticed and cared for.
Some written care plans did not fully reflect the complex risks and needs of all people, which meant the service could not always demonstrate equity in documenting the guidance needed for consistent outcomes. For example, escalation guidance varied between individuals, and some important background details were not included in their plans.
 

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. Staff knew people well, and consistent staffing helped people plan their days in ways that reflected their routines, interests and preferences. People had access to community activities and outings, which supported future planning around goals, engagement and meaningful occupation.
Partnership working with housing and local authority colleagues supported shared planning, including around environmental improvements, providing feedback about safety issues and the coordination of care. This helped anticipate and respond to emerging needs across the scheme. One health professional told us how the service had worked as part of a multidisciplinary team to support people approaching end of life or those with complex mobility or mental health needs. These strengths supported coordinated, person‑centred care across the service.