Tees Grange

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.

Staff 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 engaged with people in a positive manner, knew people well and were aware of their individual needs and preferences.

Staff worked together to tailor the support people received, for example, in relation to specific communication needs. Staff told us they used non-verbal cues, including body language, facial expressions, pain assessment tools and input from families to deliver person centred communication. We observed the use of interactive technology which supported people to make personalised choices at mealtimes.

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.

Information was available and shared between services as needed to ensure people's care and treatment needs could be assessed and met. Systems were in place to support the monitoring of incidents, accidents and falls. Appropriate and timely referrals were made to health care professionals, including GP’s, dietitians and the falls team.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The provider organised for resident and relative meetings where people could ask questions and were supported to understand information.

Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDT) were held which provided information about people and monitored how and when referrals to external services were required. Summary records were listed in care documentation which shared information from MDTs and families.

The provider told us they could provide appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in a range of formats that were tailored to individual needs.

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. ‘The service user and families and friends survey’ was a way the provider gathered feedback ensuring people were listened too and involved.

People and their relatives knew how to voice their opinions or raise complaints and they told us they felt free to do so. We saw examples of how the provider followed their complaints process and learned lessons from complaints that had been raised. The provider was open and transparent in relation to complaints that had been made to the service and used these to drive improvement.

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

People's care records showed they had access to healthcare and appropriate referrals were made when needed. A health and social care professional told us, “They know all about their residents and take their responsibilities seriously. The manager always has time to discuss, provide information, and has the clearly written care plans and risk assessments we require.”

Facilities within the home met people’s mobility, communication and sensory needs ensuring equity in access and reducing inequalities.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in their experience or outcomes, and they tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

People’s human rights were protected. The provider had procedures regarding equality and diversity. Staff had undertaken training to understand about non-discriminatory practice.

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. Care documentation recorded people’s choices in relation to end of life discussions.

A health and social care professional told us about a person whose individualised support plans had enabled them to live more independently and achieve new personal goals.