KYN Bickley

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 was the first assessment since the service was registered with CQC. 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 and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People received person centred care.

We observed people being supported in line with their needs and preferences. Conversations with staff evidenced their understanding of people's wishes. One relative told us, “The staff are aware and know my [relative]. They[staff] have worked with me and the family to assess my [relative] needs and we have discussed how best to care and support.

A health professional told us “Staff take time to understand what matters most to each resident,”

A staff member told us some people preferred to stay in their rooms and were offered individual life enrichment activities, We observed this catered to their preferences. There were organised group activities. These included art therapy , virtual cycling, knitting and puzzles.

Rooms were decorated with people’s personal items and people were able to bring some items of their own including furniture.

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 worked in partnership with agencies, people and their families to ensure the agreed and contracted quality of care was met. The provider identified when people’s needs changed and ensured care levels were increased where necessary.

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

During our visit we observed staff understood how to support people with their individualised communication needs. To help people make decisions and choices, visual prompts were used when required. People also had individualised communication passports to help guide staff and external health and social care professionals on how best to communicate with a person.

We also saw examples of information being presented in different formats such as large print or easy read pictures in line with the 'Accessible Information Standard.' This also helped aid people with their understanding.

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 provider maintained a complaints log which was periodically reviewed to identify any themes. The log showed that complaints were responded to in a timely manner, apologies given and action taken to minimise the risk of it happening again.

People knew how to raise concerns and complaints. The provider investigated these and responded to the complainant in line with their policy and procedure.

People and their families felt able to approach staff to complain and were satisfied with the outcome and these were managed in line with the providers policy and procedures.

Families had individual meetings with the registered manager to discuss their relative’s ongoing care. There were regular people’s and relative meetings where people could raise concerns and share ideas. There was also regular lunches meeting with senior managers. A person told us they had raised a concern with the provider, and the concerns were resolved.

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

People received equal access to care regardless of their protected characteristics. The home was adapted to ensure people had equal access around it and to use communal areas. Staff had received training in equality, diversity and inclusion and the provider had a policy and procedure for staff guidance.

The home had wide and well-lit corridors which were wheelchair accessible. Lifts were secured but available to ensure people could access all areas of the home and handrails were in place to support people’s mobility. Adapted bathrooms and equipment to support people’s needs was available and well maintained.

The importance of people having their own belongings around them was recognised with many people having their own furniture, pictures and personal belongings in their rooms.

Activities were available to all, people who were unbale to access group activities were supported with individual activity. Activities were also adapted to people’s needs and abilities.

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.

The provider had a policy in place to ensure people were treated fairly and equally, and staff completed training to improve their understanding of equality and diversity. Staff supported people to maintain their choices and independence.

The provider was flexible with their approach and support to ensure people had an equity of experience. The staff worked with other professionals to make sure they understood and met people’s individual need.

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.

The service supported people throughout deterioration in their health or changing needs. The service worked very closely with the local hospice to ensure people at the end of their life and their families were well supported.

End of life care plans were in place and do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation record [DNACPR] were available for staff guidance and in an emergency .The provider developed care plans which outlined people’s wishes and needs for end-of-life care. People’s doctors had also discussed their wishes for resuscitation with them or their relatives. Staff had information about people’s wishes to help them know how to respond in the event of an emergency. However, some records had been created when people were staying in hospital. The registered manager agreed to review these with people and their relatives to make sure information was up to date and accurate.