Exmoor Drive

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 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff 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’s care records were personalised to their individual needs and preferences. They included information regarding their life history. Where people expressed some distress and anxieties plans were in place to promote the person’s wellbeing during these times. We observed staff members to be caring and interacted positively with people.

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. People’s care records described their healthcare needs and how to meet these. Staff worked with other healthcare services who were involved in people’s care and support. This included doctors, community learning disability nurses, speech and language therapists and behaviour specialists. Records included information about advice provided by these professionals.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Staff communicated with people in the most appropriate way for the person. For example, for one person, staff used objects of reference, pictorial aids and simple Makaton sign language. Makaton is a language programme that combine signs, symbols and speech to give different options for people to communicate. People had individual communication plans that detailed effective and preferred methods of communication, including the approach to use for different situations. For example, triggers and what actions to take. One person’s care plan we viewed provided good, detailed information for staff to follow on specific cues to aid communication with them. Information was available in easy read and pictorial formats. For example, information on what to do if you don’t feel happy with your service and fire safety.

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. The home had a process for managing complaints. However, relatives we spoke with shared they had not received a copy of the policy and process. One relative said, “Not had (copy) but would complain heavily if needed.” Another relative told us, “Any complaints – we tell them! Don’t have a copy of the process.” Whilst people didn’t have a physical copy they clearly understood how to complain and felt confident the process would resolve it. People were able to share feedback during individual meetings and as part of resident of the day process. The registered manager was open and honest and told us resident’s meetings had not been held on a regular basis due to their being conflict between individuals. However, there was a schedule in place for 2026. Meetings were planned for the last Friday of every month at 4pm.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff understood the needs of people with a learning disability and worked hard to ensure barriers faced by people were removed or mitigated against. This included ensuring people had advocates who could represent them if needed. One person said, “I have an advocate to read my letters, and I’ll have a social worker when I move.” Records showed people were supported with appointments, and healthcare professionals visited the home. Referrals to external professionals were made as 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. Care records showed, where possible, people were involved in the planning of their care. For example, staff assessed how people make choices in relation to day-to-day tasks such as routines, food and activities. Guidelines were in place to help staff effectively support and communicate with individuals enabling them to make choices. Records showed input from other professionals in planning and delivering people’s support, for example, speech and language therapists and specialist consultants.

We saw RESPECT forms were in place which stated whether people were for resuscitation or not and whether they were to be admitted to hospital. These had been created through collaborative conversations with the person where possible, family members and healthcare professionals. In addition, records showed whether there was a pre-paid funeral plan in place. However, we could not see end of life plans for all the people living at the home which detailed their individual wants and wishes such as hymns and music choices. We received mixed feedback from relatives in relation to end of life planning. One relative said, “It crops up, a bit yes, but not made a definite plan. [Person’s name] is on palliative care and staff will phone if anything possibly serious.” Another relative said, “No we haven’t.” And a further relative told us, “Mum put a plan in place for [person’s name].” We discussed this with the registered manager who assured us they would approach this subject with people and their relatives again. Any conversations held about people’s choices and decisions about their future, including at the end of their life would be recorded appropriately in people’s care records. If people and relatives did not wish to discuss this, the registered manager assured us they would record this with a plan to revisit this topic periodically.