Signature at Hendon Hall

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 assessment 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 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.

What people wanted from their care experience and what people’s relatives wanted for their loved ones was promoted by the staff, heads of care and registered manager. People’s routines and daily likes and dislikes were documented and followed. This included ensuring everyone was included in social outings and to spend time in the communal parts of the home. As one person told us, “There are regular events and outings. [They showed us the timetable] there is always something planned.” A person’s relative also said, “They [management] are really good on continuity of carers, all the staff know [name of relative] and their foibles. [Name of person] is stimulated going on trips and activities every day to shake them up.”

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’s health needs were regularly reviewed, and further action was sought from professionals if needed by nurses and the clinical lead. Staff talked us through how some people’s health had improved through their intervention. There were some issues with 2 people’s care not being joined up and with their care planning. But in the main there was positive work routinely happening for people. We spoke with the heads of department and registered manager regarding these two people and it was resolved.

The provider did not always supply appropriate information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People’s care plans and risk assessments were in standard formats and in English even when some people were living with dementia and for some who no longer spoke English. When a person made a complaint, it was processed appropriately, but they were not given information on what they could do if they were unhappy with how the complaint was handled. In other ways, people were being given clear information from staff day to day about their care needs and what was happening that day.

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 spoke well of an ‘open door policy’ to speak with the registered manager if they had any issues. There was a culture in the home of the registered manager spending a big part of their day engaging with people individually and people’s relatives. There were meetings for people to give their feedback. In the recent past people had complained about the food and meals. Actions were taken and improvements were made, to the extent people now spoke well of the food and staff wanted to show case this work.

Theprovidermade sure that people could access the care,supportand treatment they needed when they needed it.

The provider hadestablisheda GP round twice a weekand regular clinical reviews into people’s nursing needs at the home. Referralswere being made to key health professionals. Timely action was taken when peoplebecame a low weight andwhen theyneededintervention to protect their skin from breaking down.

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.

Leaders and staff were mindful of people who lived with dementia, living in a part of the home, which was kept secure for people’s safety, should also have the same experiences as those not living with dementia. Planned events happened which were tailor made to these people’s needs. Leaders told us people were supported to enter the main communal parts of the home routinely. For those people living in the assisted living part of the home and who needed support to eat their meals people were encouraged to eat in the café and not in their rooms.

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.

Further work was needed here to consider this planning and evidence the conversations with people’s loved ones, so plans could be made. Especially for those living with multiple health conditions and dementia. Although, most people had relatives involved in their care who staff understood would step in to direct staff at this time. But holistic plans needed to be made in preparation, including for a sudden decline in health.