Coralyn 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 changed to Requires Improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 46 (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 did not make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. The providers processes to ensure people received person centred care was not effective. For example, peoples care plans were inaccurate and did not always contain information about people’s sexual orientation or needs, or religious beliefs. During our site visit we found that care notes had been completed prior to completion of activities.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. People were not always support in all aspects of their health. For example, one person had mobility needs that had not been assessed appropriately, the provider was unable to provide evidence of health care professional’s input. However, people were supported to access health appointments in the community.

The provider did not supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People had a weekly activity planner, however these were kept in a folder and not readily available for people to view. People were not able to tell us what activities or trips they would be participating in that day.

The provider gained feedback from relatives and people living at the service through questionnaires. The questionnaires for people were generic and did not contain details of the topics discussed. We saw evidence of completed surveys from relatives and professionals, however, some relatives told us that they had not received surveys.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. We saw evidence that people were supported to attend health appointments.

Staff and leaders 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. Policies and procedures were in place to help ensure people’s rights were upheld.

People were not 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. We found that end of life care plans was in place, however, they did not contain information about people’s personal wishes and preferences, therefore people were not at the centre of their care and opportunities had been missed to gain this information.