Provence 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. This is the first assessment for this 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.

People generally received person‑centred care, and we saw many examples of staff adapting their approach to meet people’s individual preferences. Care plans were usually written in a personalised way, and families told us they were able to contribute to reviews and felt listened to. One relative said, “They know them very well and know what they like. They treat them as an individual.” Staff described people’s personal histories and interests, and we observed caring interactions during mealtimes and throughout the day.

However, care planning was not always consistent and some updates were not reflected across planned care, daily notes and individual risk documentation. This meant people’s changing needs were not always recorded clearly or timely. Staff demonstrated a good knowledge of people and were motivated to provide care to support people’s preferences.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up and flexible. However, it did not always support choice and continuity.

The service understood the support needs of people living in the home and generally worked well with relatives, GPs, district nurses and external partners. Professionals told us staff were prepared for clinical rounds and “engaged and proactive” when sharing information. People and relatives said staff kept them informed, and we saw evidence of flexibility. For example, supporting mixed living arrangements between the home and family home.

Some inconsistencies in record‑keeping limited continuity, particularly where planned care did not align with daily practice. Staff also raised concerns about frequent redeployment to support the domiciliary service, which at times affected staffing levels in the home. However, staff demonstrated a strong commitment to the people they supported.

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

People and relatives were given appropriate information about the service, including access to care plans, menus and activity information. The service user guide was available and information was usually provided in plain language. People told us staff explained things clearly and were approachable when they had questions.

However, some information formats were not fully tailored to people’s diverse communication needs. For example, menu boards were written rather than pictorial, which may not support people living with dementia. Following feedback, the provider had commenced work to improve the clarity and consistency of information provided to people.

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

People and relatives were encouraged to share feedback, and informal discussions took place regularly. People described feeling listened to, and one person said, “If I have a slight worry, it gets sorted.” Regular discussions were held with relatives, where necessary, and the service had set up suggestion boxes. However, regular resident and relative meetings were inconsistent, and actions were not always fully documented or communicated back to people.

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

People had equitable access to the service. Reasonable adjustments, such as sensor mats or specific meal textures, were provided where needed. Staff worked flexibly with families and external agencies to accommodate preferences, including attending appointments, supporting community activities, and arranging alternative routines for people with fluctuating needs.

The physical environment was accessible, and aids and adaptations were available. There was no indication any group of people faced unequal access to care or opportunities within the home.

Staff and leaders accessed 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 experienced positive and inclusive interactions from staff, and relatives consistently described staff as kind and respectful. Feedback did not indicate any discrimination, and staff had completed equality and diversity training. People from different backgrounds accessed the same services, activities and support.

Staff advocated for people’s individual rights, contacting relatives promptly when people became distressed. The home supported emotional wellbeing through music therapy, sensory sessions and community‑based opportunities. Despite some care plan inconsistencies, these did not indicate inequitable outcomes for people.

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.

Care reviews, end‑of‑life discussions and involvement of relatives and external professionals supported people and their families to plan for the future. We saw examples of compassionate end‑of‑life practice and staff supporting families with grief and decision‑making. One relative said, “They told me straight away if something changes, I know I can come in any time, including at night.”

Staff understood people’s preferences and worked with families to plan for future care and changing needs.