Tony Long House

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 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 and their relative told us the staff provided person-centred care. People reported this had now improved andthey felt actively listened to about how they wanted to live their lives.

We observed people doing the things they enjoyed for example, colouring, jigsaws and collecting handbags. We saw people’s artwork and completed jigsaws in frames and displayed throughout the service. People actively engaged with us about completing these pieces of work and how proud they were to have them displayed.

We saw people had opportunities to feedback about the care they received.

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.

Staff worked with other professionals to ensure all health and social care needs were met. Relatives told us the service arranged all people’s appointments and kept them informed of dates, times and outcomes. The provider worked closely with a healthcare professional at the local GP surgery and other professionals to ensure care was joined up for people.

A professional told us, “Tony Long House works well with our team and other community services. There was a recent person’s discharge with complex health needs. The manager attended multi-disciplinary meetings (MDT’s), discussed what was required for discharge. They discussed the support of other services would enable [Person] to come home which was their wish. The staff were exceptional post discharge, and the person’s health continues to improve with the excellent care and support.”

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

People had detailed information in their care and support plans about their communication preferences. Terminology and words people understood and used were also clearly documented. We saw people had dedicated picture books with photographs of people and topics that staff could chat with them about.

The provider had an Accessible information standards (AIS) policy available which detailed the different formats the service could produce if requested.

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 had a complaints process which had been shared with people and their relatives. Complaints were recorded and investigated and responded to within the providers timescales. There were a low number of complaints recorded.

Relatives told us they knew how to complain and felt assured the registered manager would act upon their concerns. People were supported to raise any complaints or concerns with other agencies. Staff were aware of other organisations where they could raise concerns.

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

There was a clear focus on working collaboratively with healthcare professionals to address any barriers to access. For example, discussions had taken place regarding access to GP services as people’s needs changed over time. A health professional told us, “The manager highlighted the reasonable adjustments required for each person in the home. Some people required home visits, and others could attend the surgery but preferred morning appointments. We are currently exploring how best to support individuals with this.” This demonstrated a proactive and joined up approach to improving access to health appointments for people.

However, we received feedback from staff about people not having access to a dedicated vehicle. They felt this restricted people’s access to the community and impacted on people’s financial circumstances. The registered manager told us it would be beneficial to have a service vehicle, but people were not disadvantaged by not having one. People were supported to use public transport with staff via a free bus pass. Additional transport options, such as dial-a-ride services and an accessible minibus, were available and used for planned outings including trips to the seaside, special social occasions and seasonal activities. These were booked in advance when needed and if a minibus was hired the service paid the fee for this. People also shared taxis where appropriate to reduce costs. This demonstrated that alternative arrangements were in place to maintain access and promote inclusion.

People also told us they did not use the garden very much and although the garden area was secure, we identified it was not particularly inviting for people to spend time in during warmer weather. We discussed this with the registered manager, who told us they planned to work with people living at the service to explore how the space could be developed to better meet their preferences and encourage greater use.

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.

Leaders showed a good understanding of the principles set out in Right support, right care, right culture and staff had received training on supporting people with learning disabilities. During our inspection, we observed staff applying this learning effectively in practice. Staff described how they adapted their communication styles and ways of working to ensure people with learning disabilities received equitable and accessible support. We also saw staff consistently adjusting their practice to respond to individual needs.

Care plans reflected people’s individual identity and needs, including their protected characteristics, as well as their social, cultural and spiritual preferences. This information helped staff understand people well which resulted in positive outcomes.

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.

Care plans contained clear information about people’s future goals, preferences and wishes. For example, one person’s plan detailed the individual responsible for supporting future arrangements, alongside specific guidance to ensure their wishes would be respected.

The registered manager told us they were proud of the work undertaken in collaboration with another professional to support people to engage in sensitive and meaningful conversations about their future wishes.