Roy Kinnear 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. However, we found several areas where the provider needed to improve in relation to effective communication.

This service scored 71 (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 were treated with dignity and respect, and staff interactions reflected an understanding of each person’s unique needs and preferences. Staff also understood certain environmental triggers, such as loud noises, and made efforts to reduce these when supporting individuals who found them distressing.

People were supported in ways that reflected their routines and personalities. Staff described how they involved individuals in setting up their rooms and choosing activities. Families confirmed this, with one relative stating: “The home treats them (my relative) like a young adult and are always asking family advice to try to ensure that the care provided is appropriate.”

Care delivery was not task focused. Instead, it reflected an effort to tailor support to each person’s needs. Staff supported individuals to make choices where possible and involved family members in decisions.

The provider was in the process of implementing an electronic care planning system, and staff had begun training to use it. This was intended to help improve how care was planned, reviewed, and documented, with a view to advancing more person-centred and outcome-based support.

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.

People received support from familiar and consistent staff, which promoted continuity and confidence in their care. Rotas showed efforts to maintain consistency in staffing, and people benefitted from staff who understood their personal histories, communication methods, and preferences. Staff were able to describe people’s needs with clarity and compassion. One family member shared, “They really work hard to get to know my family member and treat them as a young adult.”

The provider demonstrated a good understanding of the health and social care needs of the people living in the service. Staff received induction and ongoing training tailored to the needs of the service user group, including learning disabilities and complex health conditions.

Staff worked in partnership with external health professionals, such as GPs, dentists, and district nurses, and supported people to attend their appointments. Hospital passports were in place, and efforts were made to ensure people were seen by familiar clinicians when attending hospital settings.

People were supported to maintain links with their local community and pursue meaningful activities, including attending church, using their bus passes, participating in music sessions, and yoga.

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

People received information in ways that reflected their individual communication needs. Staff demonstrated an understanding of how to adapt communication using gestures, facial expressions, pictures, and objects of reference. Where people were non-verbal, staff described how they recognised vocalisations and body language to aid understanding and engagement.

Information was available in accessible formats, and staff said alternative formats such as large print or easy read could be made available if needed. Staff were aware of the Accessible Information Standard and the need to tailor communication to each person. Pre-admission assessments and care plans included information about people’s preferred communication methods.

Staff had completed training on General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and understood the importance of storing personal information securely. Information was only shared on a need-to-know basis, and people’s right to privacy were respected. Care records were securely stored in a secure office accessible to only those who had the right of access.

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.

There were systems in place to log complaints and track actions. However, records did not consistently show whether outcomes were communicated or whether learning had been embedded. Leaders told us that improvements were made when complaints or concerns were raised and discussed examples of using family visits and phone calls to address issues.

The service had introduced a weekly email update system intended to keep families informed about people's health, activities, and general feedback. Family members felt this needed to improve. A family member said, “Communication is not good, overall. The house lacks a consistent framework for communication with families. Whilst I am comfortable that I can call and speak to staff that know my relative at any time, email communication is less responsive. House had introduced a Friday email in the Spring... I received only one such email and the policy has not been embedded, as far as I can see.”

While informal engagement through calls and visits were ongoing, structured keyworkers meetings, feedback surveys or suggestion boxes were not yet embedded. Leaders acknowledged this and said plans were in place to strengthen feedback mechanisms and ensure people and their families had more regular opportunities to be involved in shaping their care. The complaints policy had been updated in line with best practice and included clear guidance on timescales and resolution.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The home was accessible throughout, including full lift access between floors and clear routes to the sensory room located in the garden. The environment was adapted to meet the mobility needs of people living with complex conditions. Reasonable adjustments were in place to support access to care and facilities, for example, specialist equipment and accessible bedrooms.

People received care and support based on assessed needs regardless of their background, ability. Staff demonstrated awareness of how to meet the cultural, spiritual, and individual preferences of people.

Leaders demonstrated a clear understanding of their obligations under equality and human rights law. Policies were in place to reflect the Accessible Information Standard, and staff had been trained on promoting inclusive care. Staff were alert to signs of discrimination or inequality and told us they would escalate any concerns if they felt a person were being treated unfairly.

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 experienced care that was tailored to their individual needs and identities. The provider demonstrated a commitment to promoting equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) across the service. Training records showed that staff had completed EDI training, which covered protected characteristics, unconscious bias, and inclusive communication practices. This training helped ensure that staff approached care delivery with sensitivity and respect for people’s differences.

We saw that staff made efforts to understand people's life histories, cultural preferences, and communication needs. People were encouraged to express themselves and participate in activities that reflected their interests. For example, we saw how staff adjusted their approach to care by supporting individuals to engage with preferred sensory items such as music or tactile materials.

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.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of end-of-life care and spoke confidently about how they would engage families sensitively in conversations around future planning. Provisions for end-of-life care were referenced in care plans, and staff described the importance of respecting people’s wishes and involving loved ones in any decision-making. The provider had supported people through best interest discussion to put together an end of life plan where wishes and preferences were documented.