49 Bath Road

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

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 82 (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.

Staff knew people well and tailored support to reflect individual routines, communication styles and sensory needs, including adapting communication methods and activity planning to meet individual preferences. Care and support plans were personalised and included guidance that staff used consistently in day‑to‑day practice. This helped ensure people received support that reflected their needs rather than a standard approach.

Care records showed staff adapted support promptly when people’s emotional or behavioural needs changed. Families confirmed this flexibility. One relative said, “Management will look at what is needed to make it successful.” Where activities or approaches were not effective, staff reviewed and adapted plans instead of withdrawing support, to maintain engagement and reduce anxiety. This reduced anxiety and helped people remain engaged.

People were supported to make choices and remain involved in decisions about their care. Staff used visual aids, routines and personalised communication approaches to support understanding. Where people could not communicate their views independently, staff involved families and professionals in decision‑making to ensure people’s wishes and best interests were reflected.

External professionals reported that this responsive approach reduced distress, improved stability and supported increased independence for people with complex needs.

Personalised and flexible care supported people’s wellbeing, independence and quality of life.

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 care from staff who knew them well and understood their needs, routines and preferences. Staffing arrangements supported continuity, and people were usually supported by familiar staff across shifts, with structured approaches to maintaining consistent relationships. This helped staff recognise changes in people’s presentation and respond appropriately.

Care records showed information was shared effectively between staff, including during handovers and reviews, supporting consistent delivery of care across team. Support plans were clear and accessible, enabling staff to deliver consistent care even when different staff members were supporting people. Where people experienced changes in need, staff updated care and behaviour support plans so approaches remained consistent.

Families and professionals said continuity of staff and care helped people feel settled and reduced anxiety. External professionals reported that consistent support contributed to improved stability and reduced distress, particularly for people with complex needs

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

The service identified people’s communication needs and shared key information in easy‑read formats using symbols and plain language. People received accessible information about safeguarding, complaints and emergency procedures. Easy‑read safeguarding materials explained what abuse is, that abuse is wrong and who people could tell if they felt unsafe. This helped people understand risks and how to seek help.

People were also given easy‑read information about how to make a complaint. This clearly explained who they could speak to within the service and how to contact external organisations, including CQC. This supported people to express their views if they were unhappy.

Accessible emergency information, including easy‑read fire evacuation guidance, explained what would happen if the fire alarm sounded and reassured people that staff would support them to leave safely. This reduced anxiety and helped people remain calm during emergencies.

Professionals said staff knew people well and shared information in ways people could understand. One professional said staff showed “good awareness of residents’ communication styles and behavioural presentation.” A relative told us, “Communication is very good.”

Staff adapted how they shared information depending on people’s understanding, supporting involvement, choice and reassurance.

Accessible and highly personalised approaches to sharing information ensured people were fully informed, reassured and able to understand their care and support. This reduced anxiety and increased confidence, enabling people to make meaningful choices, exercise control and actively engage in their care. As a result, people experienced greater independence, involvement and improved wellbeing.

The provider was good at enabling people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff always involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The service used accessible methods to gather people’s views and involve them in decisions. Easy‑read feedback forms with symbols were completed with people, supported by staff who knew them well. One person said they were happy, felt safe, enjoyed activities and liked the food. Another person confirmed they were happy at the service, felt safe and enjoyed activities and meals.

Where people found it difficult to engage verbally or understand questions, staff adapted their approach and relied on observation, reassurance and familiarity to understand people’s experiences. Notes accompanying feedback records showed staff recognised when people required prompting or did not fully understand questions, and they did not force engagement. This demonstrated respect for people’s communication needs and rights.

Staff also involved families and professionals when people could not express their views independently, ensuring decisions reflected people’s best interests, preferences and wellbeing. Feedback showed people appeared settled, relaxed and comfortable during engagement, which supported confidence in the approach used.

Accessible engagement helped people feel heard, supported and involved, contributing to positive experiences and a sense of safety and wellbeing

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

Staff responded promptly when people required support and adjusted how care was provided to ensure timely access. People were able to access a general practitioner and other health professionals when required. Staff worked proactively with primary care and specialist services and sought advice promptly when people’s health needs changed. Health professionals said staff were attentive to changes in people’s conditions and maintained clear, detailed communication, which supported timely access to treatment and co‑ordinated care.

The service made reasonable adjustments to ensure people they supported could access care and treatment on an equal basis. This included using personalised communication approaches, flexible timing and additional reassurance so people could engage with support when they needed it, including support to meet cultural and religious needs. Where people could not communicate their needs independently, staff worked with families and professionals to ensure decisions were made promptly and in line with people’s best interests.

Staff ensured access was not limited by cultural, faith or dietary needs. These were recognised and incorporated into daily routines and care planning so people could access appropriate support and treatment without disadvantage.

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 that people experienced the service differently and made reasonable adjustments so people could have comparable experiences and outcomes. Staff recognised people’s protected characteristics and adapted communication, routines and environments to reduce barriers and promote inclusion. Families confirmed that religious practices and dietary needs were respected and supported, which helped ensure people were not disadvantaged because of their identity or beliefs.

People were supported to access activities, community opportunities and healthcare in ways that suited them. Where people found group activities or busy environments challenging, staff offered alternative approaches or individual support so people could still take part. Care and activity planning focused on enabling participation rather than limiting opportunities.

Where people could not express their views independently, staff involved families and professionals to ensure decisions reflected people’s preferences, rights and best interests. This helped ensure people had equitable experiences of care, even when their communication needs were complex.

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.

The service planned effectively for people’s future needs and supported people to prepare for changes in a way that reflected their wishes and best interests.

The provider took a proactive, forward‑looking approach to planning care, supporting people to develop independence and achieve positive long‑term outcomes. The service supported young adults to build skills and access education, activities and community opportunities that promoted future independence.

Staff planned and coordinated transitions effectively. Records showed structured plans with gradual introductions, familiarisation visits and consistent staffing to reduce anxiety and support adjustment. The service worked well with external professionals during complex transitions, maintaining stability when people moved between services or their needs changed.

Staff involved people, families and professionals in planning for future needs, including changes in health, routines and life stages. Where people needed support to understand changes, staff used personalised approaches such as visual aids and accessible information. Reviews were regular and responsive, ensuring plans reflected people’s goals and progress.

The service shared information effectively within the team and with external partners. This supported continuity of care and timely adjustments.

Due to the age of the people who used the service, people’s care plans did not include their wishes for the end of their life.

Forward planning supported stability, reduced uncertainty and helped people prepare for future changes.