Campbell Court

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 inspection for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated 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.

Care was personalised to people’s needs, was regularly reviewed and changed when needed. One person said, “They know me well without a doubt.” One member of staff said, “All the residents have different mannerisms and how they like to be treated, we all know who likes what.”

There was an enthusiastic and celebratory approach to the things people wanted to do to bring them affirmation and enjoyment. The provider used a ‘My Time to Shine’ document to reflect on people’s aspirations and to celebrate them when achieved. This included, amongst other things, swimming, baking, crafts, singing and gardening. Whilst the service was registered to provider personal care, the fact people’s flats were in the same building meant there were a range of positives in terms of people’s social interaction and opportunities. This was noted by a range of professionals. One said, “People were socialising with each other in the communal areas and individual flats. There was a sense of community.”

People were helped to be well informed about and conditions they may have, and the potential limitations and risks. Staff worked hard to reduce barriers and to enable people to live independently.

Safety was a priority for leaders. The culture was an open one in which concerns could be raised by people, relatives or staff, knowing action would be taken.

Senior leaders met at quarterly meetings to discuss incidents and lessons that could be learned across the organisation. Staff meetings were used to cascade any changes that resulted from investigations or awareness of good practice.

People were involved regarding how their care should be planned and delivered to reduce risks and to increase staff knowledge. One person said, “It’s so lovely. If you have a problem, they sort it out or listen.”

The service provided information to people in a timeframe and way they understood. The majority of information was shared by staff who communicated confidently with people. The provider also used a range of means to communicate key updates to people. This included a ‘You Said, We Did’ flyer in response to feedback regarding gardening, wifi, the phone system and the smoking shelter.

The registered manager had used a newsletter to update people, but this had not been utilised to good effect recently. Likewise, customer forums, which had previously been a key forum in which to share and receive information, had not happened recently and, when they had, there was a focus on housing matters, and not the provider’s care function. The provider agreed to review this and make improvements to give people more opportunities to access, and contribute to, information sharing.

Safety was a priority for leaders. The culture was an open one in which concerns could be raised by people, relatives or staff, knowing action would be taken.

Senior leaders met at quarterly meetings to discuss incidents and lessons that could be learned across the organisation. Staff meetings were used to cascade any changes that resulted from investigations or awareness of good practice.

People were involved regarding how their care should be planned and delivered to reduce risks and to increase staff knowledge. One person said, “It’s so lovely. If you have a problem, they sort it out or listen.”

People were well supported by staff who knew how to meet their needs, in a way that worked for them.

Staff ensured people had access to the right health and social care services by working openly and approachably with a range of partners.

Care planning was up to date and accurate. This contributed to keeping people safe.

Safety was a priority for leaders. The culture was an open one in which concerns could be raised by people, relatives or staff, knowing action would be taken.

Senior leaders met at quarterly meetings to discuss incidents and lessons that could be learned across the organisation. Staff meetings were used to cascade any changes that resulted from investigations or awareness of good practice.

People were involved regarding how their care should be planned and delivered to reduce risks and to increase staff knowledge. One person said, “It’s so lovely. If you have a problem, they sort it out or listen.”

No one was receiving end of life care and the service supported people who had relatively high levels of independence. Staff were able to have sensitive conversations with people about their changing needs. Care planning and links with local clinicians meant the service could support people to remain independent as long as practicable.