Polesworth Group Newborough Close

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 inspection for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 79 (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 ensured people were consistently at the centre of their care and support. Staff planned and delivered care around what mattered most to each individual which demonstrated a highly personalised, flexible and responsive approach.

The provider had recognised the previous care home people lived in, operated by Polesworth Group Homes, would no longer enable them to continue to achieve their goals in life and would become increasingly restrictive. For example, steep steps outside the front door and no allocated parking outside for the vehicle no longer supported staff to deliver person-centred care. In consultation with people and their relatives, a project to create a brand-new care home for the group of friends begun. This took several years in the planning and adaptations to be completed, while the management team worked with local authority commissioners to ensure each person’s individual needs would be met.

The move that later took place to Newborough Close enabled the group of friends to stay together, which they all desired, and they each reported to us this has led to a better quality of life. People told us they felt, “Safer”, “Happier” and “Able to do more”. One person told us, “Everything is just better, the bungalow, where we live in this village, how staff can help us do things, what we can do ourselves, just everything.”

Staff worked in line with the provider’s values in delivering person centred care. Staff felt the move had impacted positively on their ability to deliver increased person-centred care. For example, 3 people could now independently and safely accessthe immediate local area.

Attention to detail in meeting people’s physical needs further demonstrated the provider’s person-centred approach. Staff told us people could now safety access their vehicle (on a private driveway) and enjoy trips out together to, for example, local pubs, garden centres and for picnics. The registered manager had recognised the need for 1 person to have a ‘crash-safety’ checked wheelchair so they could utilise this to use to travel safely within their vehicle. Whilst legal safety measures did not require a headrest to be fitted to the wheelchair (while sat in within the vehicle), the registered manager had arranged a bespoke headrest ensuring a person-centred approach to this person’s comfort.

Staff listened to what mattered to people. Historically people had taken an annual holiday, but a recent ‘resident meeting’ had enabled people to share they no longer wished for this. Taking a person-centred approach, staff responded to people’s wishes and some agreed day trips, including a barge trip, was planned for based upon where people wished to go.

The service actively promoted strong relationships and meaningful involvement with families. Staff facilitated visits whenever this was wished for and Newborough Close enabled unrestricted wheelchair access, for any wheelchair user visitors. Relatives gave positive feedback to us about how staff and the management team involved them, made them feel welcome at the home and connected to their loved one’s personalised care.

A staff member told us, “We should all treat people as we would like to be treated.” They went on to tell us about 1 person who had a preference for routine and how they supported this person when changes might happen. The staff member told us, “It might be a health appointment or a planned trip out. I take time to ask a person about it, if they’d like to go and to give the person time to think about anything different from their routine. This approach enables [name] to get used to something different happening and take part if they wish to.”

People had individual plans of care which gave staff the information they needed to provide safe care to people. These were person-centred and contained detailed information about people’s likes and dislikes and how to support them in a way they wished for. Staff felt these contained all the information they needed.

People had ‘hospital passports’ in place and these contained detailed personal, medical and communication details. These documents are important for hospital staff so they have the information they need to make reasonable adjustments for people with a learning disability who may be admitted to hospital.

People were given opportunities to share their any cultural, religious and spiritual needs they wished to be supported with. One person told us, “I used to go to the church before, and I might visit this new one here. Staff will help me go if I want to.”

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.

The provider ensured people were supported by a consistent staff team who knew people well. The service did not use agency staff and any cover for leave was provided by existing staff or staff from other homes that knew people. This meant there was minimal disruption to people’s routine.

People knew staff by name and whilst staff were professional, they acted in a friendly way in all interactions with people. This led to meaningful and trusting relationships which allowed people to share any concerns they had with staff.

Communication between staff members was effective. Team meetings took place and any changes in people’s needs were responded to in a timely way.

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

The provider met the Accessible Information Standard; by ensuring important information was made available to people in formats they could access. For example, information about safeguarding and complaints.

People living at the home told us they would talk with staff if they wished to change anything or make a complaint. At the time of our inspection, no one had any complaints and shared positive feedback about the service.

The provider was currently making individual plans of care more accessible, in varied formats for people. At the time of our inspection some had been completed and others were underway. Within a ‘Service User Guide’ there was accessible information in a pictorial format informing people about the service and what care and support they would receive. This was currently generic and not individual focused. However, the provider’s current transition plans toward a new electronic format would allow for a more personalised accessible format for 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.

Everyone living at the home expressed they were happy living there. People felt listened to and involved in their care.

People told us they had no complaints. One person said, “I have had never had any problems with complaints or things bothering me, if I did, I would talk to staff. Staff always tell me, if anything is bothering me, to tell them and they will sort it out.” Relatives had no complaints about the service.

Systems and processes were in place to gain feedback from people and relatives. The management team analysed this and where improvements were needed, actions were taken. Relatives felt communication between staff and themselves was good. One relative told us, “Communication is good. I am always kept informed about what is going on. I receive an annual questionnaire, that is a clear and concise way, to give feedback.”

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

Observations and staff feedback showed they had a patient approach toward people living at the home. This included taking the pace of life slowly which reflected the wishes and age group of the people and clearly explaining what was happening. One staff member told us, “One person recently had a blood test, so we took time to explain what it meant and what is was for to make sure they could understand and agree to this.”

The management and staff team understood the diverse needs of people and delivered care that supported choice. The provider’s services were for people with a learning disability, and / or autistic people and 1 person had a risk of becoming upset if there were changes to their routine. Staff understood this and worked together to ensure people could access the services they needed, including dental and GP services.

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.

The provider recognised the inequalities in accessing healthcare that some people with a learning disability may face. In response to this, Polesworth Group Homes worked closely with the local GP practice and the practice’s Patient Participation Group (PPG) had invited a ‘service user representative’ from Polesworth Group Homes to be a part of the group. This led to greater equity in experiences and outcomes for people, including all those living at Newborough Close. For example, feedback had been shared on the challenges faced by people accessing healthcare such as digital confidence, transport to appointments and communication needs. This increased GP awareness in needs and working together to achieve positive outcomes for people.

Staff spoken with gave examples of how they enabled people to access community places and activities. One staff member told us, “I would always advocate for the person I was supporting.”

The provider had policies on equality and diversity, and the staff team were supported in creating an inclusive culture for colleagues and people living at the home.

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.

People were supported to discuss their future wishes if they wanted to. This had included the move to their current home. One person told us, “It’s my home for life now.” Another person had been supported to put a funeral plan into place.

At the time of our inspection, no one living at the home had deteriorating health or was receiving end of life care. Staff told us that whenever possible people would be cared for, if they wished, in their own home with the support of healthcare professionals if they became poorly.