Compton Manor

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 rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.
 

This service scored 64 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.
The provider did not always ensure care plans fully reflected people’s needs, preferences or aspirations. Staff did not consistently update records or include enough detail to guide person-centred care. This meant staff did not always have clear guidance to deliver care in line with what mattered to people.
Staff did not always follow known preferences. For example, 1person had a specific preference about how staff served their food, but staff did not consistently respect this. Staff did not always deliver care in line with people’s individual choices.
Staff did not always fully involve people in decisions about their care. One person told us: I think I have a care plan, I’ve never seen it”, another person said, “I have a care plan, but I’ve not had any care meetings, to discuss it or anything like that”. Although staff involved some people, this was not consistently embedded. This increased the risk that care became task-focused rather than centred around people’s preferences.
However, staff supported people in line with their preferences in some areas. People could choose meals and change their minds, and staff respected cultural food preferences. Staff also supported some people to maintain hobbies and attend places of worship.
Leaders acknowledged the gaps and began reviewing care plans to include more personalised information. However, these improvements had not yet been embedded.
 

There were some shortfalls in how the provider ensured care was joined-up, flexible and supported continuity for people.
Staff did not always share information in a timely or comprehensive way, particularly when people’s needs changed or following transitions in care. This increased the risk that staff did not fully coordinate care or respond promptly to changes in need.
Leaders did not consistently engage with partner agencies, which made it difficult to maintain a clear and shared understanding of people’s care arrangements. This reduced assurance that care delivery was aligned across services.
Records were not always up to date, which meant staff did not always have access to clear and current information to support coordinated care delivery. This increased the risk that care was not delivered consistently. In multiple care plans, we found missing entries about care provided and time spent supporting people.
However, staff were able to describe some examples of how they had contacted external professionals and made referrals when required. We saw evidence that staff followed some professional guidance to support people’s care and independence.
 

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.
Staff adapted information to support people’s understanding, including using large print and pictorial aids. Staff used translation tools and supported communication in different languages where required.
Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s communication needs and supported them during day-to-day interactions. This helped people understand their care and engage with staff.
Leaders ensured resources were available to introduce additional communication tools if needed, including for future admissions. This showed the provider considered how to adapt information to meet individual needs, and supported people to understand their care and make informed decisions about their care.
 

The provider did not always make it easy for people and their relatives to share feedback, raise concerns or be fully involved in decisions about their care and treatment.
Leaders did not consistently demonstrate how they used feedback to improve the service or communicated outcomes back to people. Some relatives reported delays or the need to follow up concerns, which reduced confidence that feedback led to change.
Not all people felt confident raising concerns. One relative told us, “I don’t complain because I’m scared, they might want [relative] to leave.” This created a risk that concerns were not raised or addressed.
However, leaders had systems in place to gather feedback, including surveys and direct conversations. Many relatives told us they felt able to raise concerns and that these would be addressed. One relative said, “If we raise any concerns they are dealt with,” and another said, “I would talk to the manager if needed.”
 

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.
Staff supported people to access healthcare services, including out-of-hours provision. Staff contacted appropriate services such as NHS 111 and urgent community response teams when needed.
Relatives confirmed staff acted on concerns. One relative told us, “They always phone if they have any concerns,” and another said, “If I spot something they quickly contact the GP.” This showed staff supported timely access to care.
Staff made reasonable adjustments to support access, including supporting people to attend appointments and involving external professionals such as physiotherapists and chiropodists.
However, staff did not always communicate effectively with relatives. One relative told us, “my relative went into hospital, and we weren’t told they were there.” This increased the risk that relatives were not fully informed when people accessed services.
 

Staff supported people in a way that respected their individual needs and generally reduced the risk of inequality in experience and outcomes.
Staff demonstrated awareness of people’s individual needs and took steps to meet them in practice. In most cases, staff respected people’s preferences and identity in day-to-day care, including supporting culturally appropriate choices and enabling people to maintain meaningful routines. This showed staff adapted care to what mattered to people.
Relatives gave positive feedback about how staff treated people. One relative told us, “They treat her [relative] with respect, they have a laugh with her.” This reflected a positive and inclusive experience of care.
Staff also made reasonable adjustments in practice, for example supporting people to maintain routines and access meaningful activities. This showed staff responded to individual needs and helped reduce potential inequalities in experience.
However, leaders had not fully embedded a consistent or proactive approach to identifying and addressing inequality across the service. Staff did not always clearly document or share how they met people’s individual needs, which reduced assurance that all staff had a consistent understanding.
Leaders also did not consistently demonstrate how they sought feedback from people most at risk of inequality or used this to inform service improvements.
 

People were supported to plan for important life changes, including decisions about their future care and support.
In most cases staff approached sensitive conversations in an open and supportive way. One staff member told us, “these discussions, around planning for the future]are handled in an open and sensitive way.” Staff supported people and families to understand options and make informed decisions.
Leaders had processes in place to support planning, including care plans, risk assessments and documentation for advanced care decisions. Where end-of-life care had been required, staff worked with families and professionals to support people in line with their wishes. This helped people and families make informed decisions before needs changed further.