Ingleborough 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. This is the first assessment 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 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.

Staff placed people at the centre of their care and actively involved them in decisions about how they wished to be supported. Care plans were personalised and reflected each person’s routines, preferences, histories and what was most important to them. Staff described how they tailored their approach to meet individual needs, with one staff member telling us, “We support people with their personal care needs and their oral care, washing, dressing, nail care, hair care, whatever is in their care plan and whatever they want.” Staff were aware of people’s support needs.

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.

Pre‑admission assessments captured cultural, communication, sensory and dietary needs, and care plans reflected personal identity, language preferences and individual goals. Staff supported a broad range of needs, including those requiring specialist communication approaches, specific cultural practices or age‑related adjustments. There was an understanding of the diverse needs of people accessing intermediate care.

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

Care plans clearly documented communication preferences, including support for people whose first language was not English. Relatives confirmed they were kept updated and involved, with one family member stating, “I am involved in care planning and they communicate with me,” while another commented, “They support with appointments and the activities always going on in the service.” One person told us, “My choices and decisions matter so much in my daily life.”

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.

People and their relatives were actively listened to and involved in their care and that of their loved ones. Meetings occurred regularly and records showed people’s views about activities, catering and the home environment were considered, with actions taken in response.

Satisfaction surveys demonstrated consistently high levels of confidence in the service, particularly in relation to communication, staff kindness, activities and overall experience. Feedback was strongly positive, with relatives describing the home as a “lovely place with lovely staff” and confirming they were informed and involved.

Most relatives confirmed they knew how to raise concerns and felt comfortable doing so, telling us they could approach staff or managers at any time.

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

Relatives expressed confidence that staff sought medical advice appropriately and communicated effectively, describing how concerns were addressed quickly and how people had improved because of timely intervention. Staff advocated for people where required, ensuring they received the correct clinical input at the right time, including adjustments to medication, escalation to GPs, and involvement of the clinical team when deterioration was identified. Observations also showed staff supporting people to manage health needs sensitively, for example, checking blood sugars before leaving the unit and ensuring people were dressed appropriately for the weather.

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 met its responsibilities under equality and human rights legislation by ensuring people were not discriminated against and that their individual characteristics, backgrounds and needs were fully considered. Assessments captured communication, cultural, sensory and dietary requirements so that reasonable adjustments could be built into daily care. For example, People who primarily communicated in their language, they were supported by staff who understood their preferred language, helping them remain involved in decisions.

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.

People were supported to plan in a way that reflected their wishes, needs and circumstances. Although there were no people receiving end‑of‑life (EOL) care at the time of assessment, an EOL tracker was in place and anticipatory arrangements had been established for those who may require them in future.