Central 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 service met people’s needs. This is the first inspection 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 75 (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. People received care and support from staff, and these were based on care plans that were produced following an assessment of their needs.

Care plans and assessments were available electronically for staff to access on their phones, ensuring they could view up‑to‑date information during visits. They included information about people’s backgrounds, interests, sexuality and cultural or religious needs. Staff told us care plans helped them get to know people. They worked in partnership with people so they could respond to changes in their needs. Staff received training, so that they ensured people remained at the centre of their care and treatment. Some care plans lacked detail about people’s preferences and their histories. The registered manager told us they would review them with people to make them more personalised.

Relatives described staff as friendly, patient and sensitive to people’s backgrounds and personal needs. For example, relatives told us carers were “very good company” Staff also recognised the emotional needs of people who were isolated or lonely and provided companionship where possible. Staff reported they “sit and chat” and took time to check people’s wellbeing, which was consistent with feedback from people and relatives.
 

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.Care was delivered in a coordinated and structured way that ensured people’s needs were met. People and relatives generally felt the service was reliable. Staff demonstrated strong understanding of each person’s care plan, risk assessments and daily routines, supporting continuity of care.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.The provider ensured people and relatives received information about their care and support, and staff knew how to explain tasks clearly to help people understand what was happening.People and relatives told us communication with the office was effective and they could easily reach management when needed. Relatives appreciated being updated about changes or delays.People’s communication needs were assessed and discussed during their initial assessment. This ensured staff knew how to communicate with people.

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.

People and relatives felt listened to and involved in decisions about care. They told us staff encouraged them to express preferences and supported them to make day‑to‑day choices. Relatives described good working relationships with office staff and said managers were approachable and responsive. Feedback showed staff took concerns seriously, and supported people through changes in their needs. Relatives said the service was reliable, and 1 relative described staff as “instrumental” when urgent support was required.

Staff consistently described involving people in decisions, seeking permission before carrying out tasks and respecting people’s space, privacy and cultural backgrounds. The registered manager promptly responded to complaints about individual staff performance. For example, when a person reported dissatisfaction with care staff, the provider acted immediately to ensure the individual did not receive care from that staff member again.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.People had fair access to the service, and the provider ensured care could be delivered safely and reliably within the borough. Staff recruitment and workforce stability supported this, as many carers lived locally, enabling prompt responses to new packages and same‑day starts when required. The provider ensured people with diverse needs, including those with learning disabilities, dementia, diabetes or reduced mobility, received appropriate support.

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’s needs were assessed before starting the service to ensure their preferences could be appropriately met.

These assessments explored each person’s diverse needs. The registered manager demonstrated awareness of groups who may face barriers to equitable care, such as people from diverse backgrounds. Staff told us they took account of people’s religious, cultural, showing respect for their social and cultural histories. They also recognised the importance of promoting equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights.

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. An end-of-life care policy was in place. People’s families were involved in any decisions about people’s future care and support.Records showed people’s end of life wishes were listened to and respected.