Archived: Escan Manor

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 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 andthey decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’sneeds.

Staff supported people in a person-centred way. Care plans were person-centred, they reflected people as individuals, their needs, interests and preferences. They included details about what people enjoyed doing and who was important to them. Care plans were regularly reviewed.

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 were supported by familiar staff who knew them well. People told us staff understood their or their family members care needs and that they worked well with multiple external health and social care professionals to consistently meet those needs. People received care and support from services such as specialist nurses and physiotherapists where required. Records showed that people were referred to relevant health and social care professionals when required.

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

People were provided with the information they needed about the service. There were notice boards and written information available for people. We heard staff talking to people about different choices, such as menus and what they wanted to do.

People’s care records included information about how they communicated and guidance for staff in how to effectively communicate with people. The service manager understood their responsibilities under the Accessible Information Standard (AIS) and told us they would ensure alternative communication formats were available, when required

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 in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

The service manager was new in post. Ensuring regular meetings where people and their relatives were able to discuss what was happening at the service and make requests and suggestions were part of the short term service development. Feedback surveys and systems for people and relatives were also to be introduced. Whilst no formal processes were in place, no significant concerns were raised in relation to communication within the service.

There was a complaints policy and procedure in place for people and their relatives to use. There was a complaints log in place that evidenced a record of concerns raised, but this was not always accurately completed to show the full conclusion of the complaint process. This was highlighted to the service manager.

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

Systems were in place to help ensure people were not prevented from receiving the care and support they needed due to their health or disability. Staff told us they worked with external professionals to help ensure people received the relevant health and social care support they required. This was confirmed by people’s records which included support and guidance provided by external professionals who were involved in people’s care.

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.

People’s care records included information about their history and diverse needs and how they were met. People’s preferences were documented regarding the care and support they received.

People were engaged and supported by managers and staff to be included and have the same opportunity as others to receive the care and support of their choice.Staff supported people to receive the appropriate care and treatment by building effective relationships with people, their families and health and social care professionals.

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.

Staff supported people to remain at the service at the end of their lives if this was their choice. The service could work closely with healthcare professionals to make sure they planned for and met people’s needs at the end of their lives.

However, we identified that improvements were needed in relation to end of life care planning. The current system meant that an end of life care plan was completed when a person was identified as being in the final stages of their life. This meant that the person may not always have the opportunity to share information that was important to them, as there was a risk they may have a health decline preventing them from doing so. This was discussed with the service manager and provider who will review the current process.