Althorpe Residential Home

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 61 (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 relatives told us they were involved within developing their care plans. A relative told us, “They [Staff] listen to [Name] and aways respond appropriately.”

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. The provider had been supported by health professionals to ensure all relevant information relating to people’s individual health needs was accurately recorded. However, we found that whilst information was available from the health professionals within the service, the provider had not ensured that this information was reflected within people’s individual care plans. We discussed our findings with the registered manager who addressed this and ensured care plans were reflective of health professionals’ advice.The service actively involved external community organisations to promote people’s wellbeing. They had strong partnerships with local entertainers and groups, helping to reduce isolation and build relationships within the local community.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The provider ensured that information was available to people throughout the service. However, the service had not fully implemented the Accessible Information Standard. The standard was introduced to make sure people are given information in a way they can understand. The standard applies to all people with a disability, impairment or sensory loss and in some circumstances to their carers. For example, easy read information was not always available within the service to support people to make informed choices.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result. The provider had a complaints procedure in place and appropriate action was taken toaddress any concerns raised. However, relatives told us that they did not always feel confident to speak with the registered manager and were not always assured appropriate action would be taken. One relative said, “We feel we need more communication from the management when concerns are raised.” The registered manager told us they had an open-door policy and were always prepared to discuss concerns with people or relatives.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff were reactive rather than proactive and did not always work closely with healthcare professionals. Although referrals were made to other health services if this was necessary, for example District Nurses, Physiotherapist and Occupational Therapist, people’s care plans lacked detail on treatment planned and any further actions required. Support, equipment and medicines were not always provided in good time.

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. People were supported and encouraged to attend activities, even if they could not actively engage in them. A relative told us “They do exercise and craft things, and there is a book and audio book club. [Name] likes to sit in, even if [Name] cannot join in.” Staff were able to recognise circumstances where the support of external services were required. Managerswere always available to support people, staff, and relatives when there were emergencies or concerns.

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 told us that they had been involved in conversations to develop their personal care plans and were kept up to date when changes were needed.