Quinnell House

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 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Whilst the provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, the documentation at this time did not support that. Staff told us, “We know people really well, they are the reason we are here, its their home, we do what we can to make sure people are happy and content,” and “Activities are not what they used to be, but we are recruiting an activity person so hopefully that will happen soon.” Visitors told us, “Staff know people, it’s the little things that matter, and they do it well,” and “Its gone downhill a bit, not much happening in the lounges, used to do more, but I see staff are doing things now so hopefully going upwards, but staff are lovely.”

People's care plans and risk assessments were not all personalised for each person and information was not always accurate and some risk assessments were generic. There was minimal information about what people enjoyed doing with their time and what was important to them and very few activities were provided in line with people’s interests. The provider was currently recruiting a dedicated activity person, at present care staff undertake this role. People told us they did get bored, but we also saw some lovely interactions between people and staff throughout the site visits.

People told us, “Mostly happy, get bored sometimes, but I have my own room, biggest in the home and I’m happy,” and “I have just moved rooms, I can now open doors to a courtyard of my own.”

People rooms were very personalised and contained items that were important to them.

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 responded to when identified. A positive relationship had been developed with professionals that regularly visited the service to advise staff and to provide specialist support when needed. Staff demonstrated an understanding of the people they supported with dementia and shared changes with families and health professionals.

A visitor told us that staff sought support from the GP in good time when their loved one was unwell, and all appointments made at clinics and hospital were attended.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. A relative told us, “Communication is difficult, because they don’t always understand what is happening, dementia is so cruel, but the staff seem to know how to talk with them and understand them well.”

Since 2016 onwards all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The standard was introduced to make sure people are given information in a way they can understand. The standard applies to all people with a disability, impairment or sensory loss and in some circumstances to their carers. Staff responded to people’s communication needs. These were assessed and recorded within individual risk assessments, and were the focus of ongoing improvement work. These included specific information on how people’s communication needs could be met and what aided their communication. For example, those who needed spectacles or hearing aids. Systems to support people to communicate with staff, relatives and friends had been assessed and promoted. For example, staff supported people to phone their loved ones as necessary.

During our assessment process, staff confided to the provider the difficulties they have completing training, this was taken forward and the staff will be fully supported going forward.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

Staff did not always involve people and their families in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result. Visitors said they used to be involved in reviews, but this has stopped in the past year. There used to also be a ‘newspaper ‘that contained information about the service, events and activities, but this had also stopped. Relative and people meetings were not being held regularly. This was discussed and there are plans to re-introduce these with the provider until the new manager takes up their post in May 2026 i. We were informed that this area had been impacted on by the number of different managers in the past year.

Complaints and concerns raised by people and relatives had not all been recorded or addressed by a manager and there was no oversight by the provider. These may be because they had not been considered as complaints, but more as grumbles. There was no complaint log or overview kept. A visitor told of complaints they had raised but there was no evidence of these being recorded or resolved. One visitor said, “I think there has been too many manager and staff changes, so I don’t think it’s been easy for staff or us, but I have been told there are changes happening to improve communication.”

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

People and families said there were no barriers to access care and treatment, and they felt it was done in a timely way. Relatives told us people were supported to continue to access the care and treatment they required outside the home. For example, for people with long term health conditions, the home worked with specialists and GPs to ensure care and support was provided.

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.

A person told us, “We are all different here, but we are all treated the same.” Relatives told us that their loved ones were included and involved in decision making, and that they (as visitors) felt welcomed and listened to. One relative said, “Always welcomed and offered drinks.”
Records showed staff had received training in Equality Diversity and they explained how they treated people equally, without discrimination and respected their individual needs, including any religious or cultural needs.

Staff were trained to recognise and respond to diverse needs, promoting fairness and inclusivity in the delivery of care.

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.

Staff worked closely with people and their families to make plans about their future care. For example, people and their families were involved in planning how they would like to be cared for at the end of their lives. It was acknowledged that some people found these discussions difficult and so staff gathered information slowly and added important details after hospital admissions. Care plans identified people's preferences at the end of their life and the service co-ordinated palliative care in the care home where this was the person's wish. Care plans contained information and guidance in respect of peoples' religious and resuscitation wishes. People had ReSPECT forms. ReSPECT stands for Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment and ensures their personal wishes are followed. People also had a DNACPR (Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation) decision, which were accessible to all staff and health professionals should a situation arise. Relatives and friends were supported with compassion when their loved ones approached the end of their lives. DNACPR and ReSPECT forms were discussed with people and families, staff made sure people understood their options to allow them a dignified death.