The Coach House SBDP1 Limited

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 Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained the same. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 50 (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 always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment. People’s care records were inconsistent and did not contain sufficient detail. For example, there was a lack of detail about people’s communication needs. Other records we reviewed contained conflicting information. For example, one person’s nutritional care plan contained different information to the corresponding risk assessment. Daily notes of people’s care were task-orientated and did not refer to people’s wellbeing.

We received varied feedback from family members. One family member said, “Involved in the planning and reviewing of his care, with [relative’s] meds etc, not seen [relative’s] care plan, I have seen the folder in [relative’s] room. Not seen any daily records.” A second family member told us, “I am involved in the planning and reviews and not sure if I have seen the care plan.” A third family member commented they were, “Involved.”

There were some shortfalls in how quickly people were referred to healthcare professionals. One person’s care records showed they had fallen multiple times, but we could not see a referral to the falls team had been made. However, we did see some examples of where there were timely referrals to healthcare professionals and could see staff were quick to ensure people had specialist equipment in place such as pressure relieving aids. The provider had an electronic care planning system and this enabled staff to record interventions in real-time.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People’s communication needs and preferences were not detailed in their care records. For example, it was not detailed how people would show they are in pain or how people used facial expressions to communicate their needs. The provider was able to tell us how information could be provided to people using different methods and formats, for example in an easy-read accessible layout.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. There were no meetings for people who used the service to attend to offer feedback or suggestions. We could not see alternative arrangements were in place. There were meetings for people’s family members, but these were not well attended. Some family members told us they were not aware of these meetings.

The provider had a complaints process in place, and a review of the complaints log showed complaints were dealt with in a timely manner and lessons were learnt. Family members told us they knew how to raise any concerns.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Healthcare professionals were not always contacted when there were changes to people’s care needs. Whilst we saw advice from healthcare professionals was recorded in people’s care records, it was not always recorded correctly in corresponding documentation.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. As people’s communication needs were not always documented, it could not be assured they could fully participate in the planning of their care.

The provider’s care planning system allowed them to share information quickly with healthcare professionals.

People were not always 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. Each person had an end-of-life care plan where they could describe how they would like to be cared for at the end of their life. However, these records lacked sufficiently person-centred detail. For example, it was not documented whether people wanted certain personal possessions with them or to have their favourite music playing.