1, 2 and 3 St Georges Gardens

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 75 (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 received care and support from staff who were focused on their individual needs. Care records clearly reflected each person’s choices and preferences, enabling staff to provide the care and support that people wanted and valued. Staff told us how they supported people to do activities of their choosing. Staff described supporting one person to access public transport for the first time. They explained the steps that were involved to ensure this happened in a planned and safe way. This has now become part of the person’s routine when a car is not available for them to travel in. The person told us, “I go out for lunch, and I go shopping”. This person’s daily records showed they undertook regular activities and had frequent contact with relatives.

The registered manager undertook reviews of people’s care and support needs monthly. Care plans were of a good standard and provided detailed guidance that supported the good quality care we observed.

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 had a range of different needs, and management team ensured their care and support were planned in a way that met those individual requirements. Staff understood each person well and provided flexible support that suited their preferences and respected their choices. They worked closely with healthcare professionals to ensure people received coordinated, consistent and joined‑up care. Care records evidenced appointments and visits taking place.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Care plans clearly described People’s communication methods. The provider made information available in different formats to meet people’s individual needs.

People received information in accessible and person‑centred formats to support their understanding. Easy‑read materials were available to explain how concerns could be raised, using simplified text with images, symbols and pictures to promote inclusion and informed decision‑making.

Visual daily planners specific to each person helped people understand routines and upcoming activities. Key information, including which staff were supporting people were consistently provided in easy read formats using symbols and photographs. This ensured information remained meaningful and accessible for everyone.

This individualised approach to sharing information promoted confidence, reduced anxiety and supported people to have choice and control in their daily lives.

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.

Staff described adapting communication styles to meet individual preferences. One staff member told us, “We have very clear and detailed individual communication plans to ensure every staff member uses the same wording, phrases or simple language. For ‘Name’, this reduces their anxiety.”

The registered manager was responsive to feedback, listened and made changes as needed. Relatives told us they were fully involved in care planning and making decisions. One relative told us, “I am always invited and attend ’Names’ reviews, and I feel listened to.”

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

People were supported by staff who understood their needs. Staff raised health and well-being issues and sought advice when necessary. People were supported to access additional support from a range of external health and social care professionals.

Records showed people attended regular health reviews and appointments. Referrals to specialist services were made promptly when additional needs were identified, helping to ensure care remained accessible, coordinated and responsive.

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.

Care plans outlined information about each person’s identity, what was important to them, their preferences, and the relationships they wished to maintain.

People were supported to access a range of activities based on their choices. Staff provided people with person-centred care, and people were given choices and encouraged to follow their interests.

Staff spoke about activities that they supported people to participate in. One person now happily and safely travels on public transport, which they had previously been unable to do. People participated in shopping, swimming and walks. We also saw in people’s care plans information about what may cause them to become anxious. There was clear guidance for staff to follow to support people in this situation.

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.

Future planning focused on building people’s independence, broadening their experiences and helping them maintain meaningful relationships. Staff knew people well and used consistent, values‑based approaches to support personal growth and achievement over time.

At the time of our assessment, no one needed end-of-life care; however, the provider did have a suitable policy in place for such circumstances.