Archived: Iceni 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.

This service scored 50 (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 did not make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. We reviewed peoples care records and found throughout there were areas of duplication and inaccuracies. We found care plans did not consistently reflect the person and lacked in history, lifestyle and what was important to them. After feeding this back to the service, we found the same concerns of the care plan referring to a female as a male and calling them a different name for a new admission.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. At the beginning of our assessment, we received feedback from healthcare professionals who said “We find that there is no continuity of care” and, “I feel that recent changes in staff and leaders, has impacted on the service and continuity whilst the home is going through a transition period and new staff get embedded.” However, the service has been working with healthcare professionals to rectify these shortfalls we were told, “We had to visit the home and speak to the previous manager about not following advice such as pressure relieving equipment, catheters etc. The previous manager has now left, and the situation is improving with [interim manager] as the new manager.” The service relied heavily on agency staff and although they used the same agency companies this was having an impact on the continuity of care.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. We reviewed people’s care plans and found they did not always effectively assess how staff communicate with people. They could not evidence how they gave people choices and ensured they were in control of their care needs. We found people did not have access to service user guides in their rooms that provided them with information on the service. All policies we reviewed were not up to date and had previous management recorded, who left the service in August 2025.

However, the service had begun a new initiative on creating a newsletter for people living in the service, updating them of news stories happening within the local area. We were unable to assess its effectiveness as it was not rolled out at the time of our assessment.

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. We found that people and relatives were not consistently involved in reviewing their care and support needs. We received feedback from a relative around not being able to complain, they said, “I tried to call, to put a complaint through, but I cannot get through to anyone”.

However, when the service was aware of these concerns, they contacted this individual to discuss them. Some people in the service could tell us who they would complain to if they had concerns.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. We found referrals were submitted in a timely manner and the service had weekly meetings with the GP practice to discuss and review people’s health needs and they had began to have monthly meetings with the community nursing team. Healthcare professionals we spoke with all found the service raised concerns promptly and were responsive to queries that were raised with them. People we spoke with felt they were supported to see healthcare professionals when needed.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. We received mixed feedback from staff around equality; 1 staff member told us “It is sometimes difficult when the staff are not speaking English in the unit. Groups of staff working together do not always speak English in front of the people” another staff member told us “I treat all my staff the same and they work well together.”

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time tomake informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. We found care plans had improved around peoples end of life wishes and requests being recorded. Staff were trained in verification of death, we were not assured staff were assessed as competent in this and under new management they made the decision to stop this current practice. However, staff had received end of life care training.