Harmonia Village

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 service. This key question has been rated Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 64 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff knew people’s needs and preferences; however, these were not always catered for in a person-centred way in the model of care provided. There was an activities board displayed with various activities in the hub, for example, flower arranging, painting and exercises. Some people were observed undertaking individual activities. Other people chose to read the paper, chat on their phone or to each other, some people were walking freely around the hub. One person said, “I love it here because of all the games.” However, there was a lack of therapeutic one to one or small group activities for people who did not want to visit the hub or were cared for in bed. One relative said, “[My relative] doesn’t like the noise in the hub. [They] like [their] own company but noise or other residents being agitated upsets [them].” Another relative told us, “The staff don’t get involved with [my relative] enough because [they are] not sociable with activities”. Whilst there was a quieter area in the hub some people preferred to remain in their rooms.

People and their relatives were involved in planning people’s care and treatment. Care plans were electronic, and relatives had access to people’s care plans and care records where this was appropriate. Where people needed professional involvement, this was in place.

Staff were assigned to support people from individual houses to improve consistency in care. Staff used electronic care plans which provided staff with reminders, such as prompting staff to ensure people were supported to move, when they were at risk of skin integrity issues if they did not. This ensured care was consistent in areas where staff were prompted. However, there were areas where information in care plans could be improved to share learning and knowledge between staff teams and reduce the risk of staff becoming task driven.

The service had a policy in place in relation to data protection (GDPR) and staff had received training in this. One staff member told us, “It’s about protecting the confidentiality of people and their information. For example, if we need to take a photo of someone, this is only done on our work device”. Care plans detailed the person’s consent for information sharing, and care records included a section on their accessible information standard needs with guidance for staff to maximise effective communication with people. People and their relatives told us they were happy with how information was provided to them. The registered manager told us they would adapt information for people if and when required.

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. There were various systems through which people could provide feedback and had done so. During the inspection people were comfortable approaching the registered manager and came to speak to them throughout the day. People and their relatives were also invited to participate in formal feedback processes such as an annual survey and there were residents’ meetings. Feedback was listened to, for example, people had complained about the food, but action had been taken and people told us improvements had been made. One person said, “I got to help change the menu. They asked me what I thought of it.” A relative said, “I trust the staff to act on my comments. [The registered manager] is really lovely.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People were referred to other services for support as required. For example, staff supported people to access occupational health, falls clinic or mental health support. People, their relatives and the services partners confirmed they were provided with this support.

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. Staff understood people’s human rights and told us they felt confident to escalate any concerns regarding discriminatory practices. For example, one staff member told us, “I would report any bullying or harassment straight away. I had online training during my induction. We don’t stand for any of that nonsense at all”.

There was signage throughout the hub supporting people to navigate to areas such as the lounge and toilet. The houses were numbered and on a ‘street’ in a layout which people were familiar with to support people with dementia to orientate themselves. People went up and down the street to their houses as they wanted to, where people needed support to do so this was provided by staff.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make some informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. There was a lack of detailed information in some care plans about people’s end of life personal preferences such as if they wanted music playing or a visit from a religious leader. This was an area for improvement.

Other plans were in place, for example, staff had anticipatory medicines in place where people were being supported at the end of their life. This meant staff could provide support with pain and anxiety quickly if this was needed.