Sylviancare South Gloucester

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.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Responsive.

The service 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.

People were involved in their care and support plans. These contained important information such as people’s hobbies and interests and how they wished to be supported.

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 Provider’s Information Return (PIR) confirmed they undertook assessments and reviews to ensure people’s individual needs and preferences were discussed with them. This included considering if the person wore a hearing aid and glasses.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The Provider’s Information Return (PIR) confirmed the service would provide information if needed in alternative formats such as easy-read documents and large print. They told us they would send people information if required as they wanted people to get the best care possible.

The service 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’s views were sought through their care plan review, telephone reviews and an annual survey. Where people had shared their feedback about the service the registered manager had a log of the feedback provided, including actions being taken. People and relatives told us when they had raised anything with the office, they were satisfied with the outcome. One person told us, “When I made a complaint they dealt with it straight away. They always listen and take action.” During our inspection where we gained feedback about some people’s care experience we shared this with the registered manager for them to take any action needed.

The provider made sure that people could access care, support and treatment when they needed it. Staff received training in equality and diversity. All staff we spoke with told us they respected people and their choices. One member of staff told us, “We respect people’s religion, sexuality and encourage them in their abilities.” All people told us they felt respected.

People were supported by staff in a person-centred approach. The registered manager provided staff with weekly training sessions which was an opportunity to discuss supporting people in a individualised way. Staff felt these meetings were positive towards the support they provided people with and their development. People were supported by staff who knew them well. Although some feedback shared with us was on occasions, people found there was a difficulty with communication due to their being a language barrier.

No one was receiving end of life care although care plans contained important information about the person such as any clinical and medical conditions. We found improvements could be made to exploring what people’s end of life wishes might be. The registered manager and staff liaised with health and social care professionals when required. The registered manager wanted to support people to stay at home for as long as possible.