Amber House Residential Home

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 requires improvement.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. The provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care. Enough improvement was found and the provider was no longer in breach of this legal regulation. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.
 

This service scored 68 (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 told us they now felt valued by staff and that their voices were heard. One person said, “The care support manager is very good, they sort everything out, as do the rest of the staff.”

The provider and staff team were in a much stronger position to deliver person‑centred care due to the overall improvements made across the service. Staff had a better understanding of people’s needs and ensured care was meaningful and tailored to each person. As care records had been developed and strengthened, there were greater opportunities to document people’s needs in detail and build truly individualised packages of care with them.

Additional staff training also meant the team had improved knowledge about how to respond to specific needs, further supporting the delivery of high‑quality, person‑centred care. People’s care needs were regularly reviewed, which enabled the management team to identify any changes promptly and adapt support in response to people’s evolving needs.

The provider had recently appointed a dedicated activities coordinator, whose sole responsibility was to plan and deliver activities for people. This was a positive step forward, as previously the role had been shared across staff, which limited the consistency and variety of what could be offered. During the inspection, activities were taking place and people were seen engaging positively. However, people, relatives and staff all acknowledged, the activity programme now needed to become more varied, meaningful and individualised. They felt while activities had improved, there was still work to do to ensure options reflected people’s interests, abilities and preferences, particularly for those who could not, or did not wish to, take part in group sessions. This included people who preferred quieter, one‑to‑one engagement or who had more complex needs which required tailored approaches.

The care support manager was already reviewing the activity provision with the newly appointed coordinator, with the aim of strengthening the programme and developing more personalised opportunities.
 

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 had developed a good understanding of the health and care needs of people which supported the delivery of flexible, joined‑up care. Healthcare professionals told us the service collaborated well with them to ensure people’s needs were met. A healthcare professional said, “Staff respond to specific medical enquiries or concerns in a timely manner, and information shared is factual and relevant to people’s care.”

The provider and management team had also worked closely with external partners to promote improvement and continuity.
 

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

There were systems in place to ensure people could receive information in a way they understood. Information was available in a range of formats where needed, helping people access what was relevant to them. Some people also used their own technology, which enabled them to receive information and communicate with others in the way they preferred.
 

The provider did not always make it easy for people, and those who were important to them to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about people’s care, treatment and support.

Processes for sharing and receiving information had improved. Staff now attended regular meetings, and a communication forum was in place so updates about people’s care needs could be shared promptly and acted upon.

Residents and relatives had begun to take part in meetings, and those who were able to attend had been doing so. However, some families told us they were not aware these meetings were taking place. We discussed this with the provider, highlighting the need for a more effective communication approach, including clearly scheduled meeting dates, to ensure everyone had the opportunity to be involved if they wished.

Despite this, relatives told us they felt confident raising any concerns directly with the care support manager, as they knew issues would be addressed appropriately.
 

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

The provider ensured people could access the care, support and treatment they required at the right time. Staff supported people with all necessary health issues, including any follow‑up reviews. Care plans were now more person‑centred and provided clear guidance on how to help people access other services with records of appropriate advice and guidance from external professionals being documented to help support and guide staff.
 

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.

As people’s information was now updated and recorded more effectively, staff had greater opportunity to understand people’s diverse needs, including those who were experiencing or may be at risk of experiencing inequalities. Person‑centred records captured people’s lives, preferences and wishes supported this process and helped staff tailor care appropriately.
 

People were not always 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.

Some people had end‑of‑life care plans in place, as this process had only recently become more established. However, for others, the plans lacked sufficient detail, meaning if a person approached the end of their life, staff would not yet have the information needed to support them effectively or in line with their wishes.

We shared this feedback with the provider, who acknowledged the shortfalls and agreed to begin a full review of all end‑of‑life care plans. Their intention was to ensure each plan captured as much meaningful detail as possible, enabling staff to deliver compassionate, personalised and well‑informed support when it was needed.