Portsdown View

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 did not provide a rating for the service. At this assessment, 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 and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People and their relatives consistently described how staff adapted their approach to reflect individual preferences. One relative told us, "When they asked [Person] how he liked to be treated, he said 'professionally'. They very quickly recognised he was a private person and gave him space because he likes his time alone."

People told us they were supported to make choices about their daily lives. One person said, "I decide when I get up, go to bed, have a shower and everything really. I can do what I want." Staff promoted personalised support. For example, the chef told us "We will make anything for people as it's their home. You would eat what you wanted at home, so we do that here."

Staff regularly reviewed people's preferences and changing needs through the 'resident of the day' approach, enabling personalised support. For example, staff recognised 1 person who experienced anxiety found comfort in flowers. Pictures of flowers were displayed on their bedroom door to help them identify their room, and spending time picking flowers in the garden helped reduce their anxiety.

Health professionals also recognised the service's person-centred culture. One told us, "It doesn't come across as task orientated or rushed. They cater to people's needs. They're not just doing the job; they're looking after people."

The environment also reflected people's identities and interests, with reminiscence areas and activity spaces designed around people's life histories, encouraging meaningful occupation, conversation and wellbeing.

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 experienced continuity of care, which was embedded into the home because there was a consistent staff team who knew people well. A keyworker system and ‘resident of the day’ was in place. This enabled staff to have enhanced focus on people’s needs and outcomes, ensuring they were regularly reviewed and updated.

The provider had established good links with the local community, and we heard from relatives and staff how specialist organisations supported and benefitted some people. For example, a dementia singing group.

People and those important to them told us they felt confident they were receiving the care and support they needed from a staff team who knew them well.

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

People's communication needs were identified, recorded and highlighted in their care plans. Staff demonstrated they understood people’s communication needs. For example, staff told us how 1 person preferred to write things down and another benefitted from the use of flashcards. A relative confirmed information was provided effectively to their relative and told us, “I actually think they (staff) communicate better with [Person’s name] than I do.”

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, relatives, and staff were encouraged to give feedback about the service. Resident’s and relatives’ meetings, one‑to‑one discussions, surveys and ‘meet and greets’ with leaders provided opportunities for people to express views or raise suggestions. People said staff were approachable and responsive. Relatives and professionals told us staff listened and acted on feedback, including adapting menus, reviewing activities, or improving aspects of care planning.

Leaders took complaints seriously, investigated and provided a timely response. Learning was taken from complaints, and they were used to improve the service.

Staff described how they listened to people and worked with them to understand their needs and wishes, and adjusted care accordingly. This inclusive approach helped people feel respected and able to influence their care.

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

Staff ensured timely referrals were made for specialist support and people could regularly access local health support when they required it. If people needed emergency care, this was arranged for people appropriately and without delay.

Some people told us they were experiencing difficulties with their sight or hearing and were waiting for appointments. The provider recognised that attending appointments outside the home could be challenging and had arranged for optician and audiology services to visit the home. Following the inspection, they shared evidence that these visits had improved people's experiences.

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 had received equality and diversity training and demonstrated a sound understanding of providing person-centred care that respected people’s individual characteristics, preferences and circumstances.

People experienced equitable opportunities to take part in daily life, regardless of whether they lived with dementia, a health condition or disability. Staff adapted support to enable people to access healthcare, activities and their local community in ways that reflected their individual needs and preferences. For example, a specialist chair had been purchased to enable 1 person to comfortably join others in communal areas and activities. People had opportunities to take part in a wide range of inclusive events, including visits from local school children and animals, and were supported to go out into the community or attend meetings that were important to them. This helped ensure people could maintain meaningful relationships, pursue their interests and achieve positive outcomes.

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 plans demonstrated people had been asked about their end-of-life care wishes. However, where people had indicated they were not ready to discuss or were unsure of their end-of-life wishes, these conversations were not always revisited or explored in different ways. The nominated individual recognised this as an opportunity to strengthen practice and told us they would work with the local hospice to further develop staff skills and confidence in having sensitive end-of-life conversations. They also explained that where a person chose not to discuss their wishes, this decision would be respected, while care plans would be completed with known information about the person's values and preferences.

A health professional told us, “Staff are good at end-of-life care.” We saw feedback from relatives expressing heartfelt gratitude for the compassion and support their loved ones had received. For example, 1 relative had left feedback stating, “We all felt blessed and [the end-of-life care] simply couldn't have been better. I have no words to express our gratitude.”