Bassett 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 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 had their own care plan which documented their personalised likes, dislikes and care needs. The service used a ‘resident of the day’ process to help keep peoples care records up to date. This process involved a review of people’s care plan and a check with the person that it was reflective of their current preferences.

We observed staff providing care that met people’s needs. Staff were aware of people’s interests and history, what was important to them and how they liked their care provided. Staff told us people, and their relatives had been involved in developing care plans. One relative said, “I have been involved with reviews to [persons] care plan. The communication between the home and myself is good, they let me know straight away when [person] has had a fall.”

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.

The provider demonstrated a clear understanding of people’s diverse health and care needs and worked collaboratively with professionals to ensure continuity and flexibility in care.

Recording of daily notes showed leaders and nurses maintained open communication channels with GPs, occupational therapists and speech and language therapists. This meant people received continuity of care and support, even when their needs were complex.

Healthcare professionals told us the service worked effectively with them and were responsive to meet people’s needs. One professional told us, “The residents health at the home is looked after very well. If there are any issues the GP is informed straight away, and the resident is monitored closely by the staff on shift.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The registered manager told us they assessed people’s communication needs prior to people moving into the service. Any adaptations or support people needed was identified so action could be taken.

The service provided information in a range of different formats including large print, different colour paper and through the use of technology such as hearing loops. There was a poster displayed around the service sharing information about the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The AIS is a set of guidelines services must follow to make sure people with disabilities or sensory impairment receive appropriate communication support and guidance.

The registered manager told us they organised meetings for people and relatives to share information about the service. This was done face to face but also held online to support more people to attend.

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.

The provider had a complaints policy and process. People were provided with a copy when they first moved into the service. There was also a copy available in the reception area at the entrance of the service.

Complaints had been recorded and letters of response sent once investigations were completed. The registered manager kept records of outcomes and information on whether complaints were shared with any other agencies such as the local authority.

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

The service was a nursing home which employed nursing staff on site 24 hours a day. This meant at any time of the day or night people had their care supervised by a registered nurse. There was also an on-call system which meant staff could reach management out of office hours for advice or guidance.

The registered manager told us they aimed to support people to access any service they needed. If people could not go out to services, staff tried to bring services into the home. For example, there was a visiting chiropodist and the local GP from a nearby surgery visited weekly.

The service was in the process of a full refurbishment. The 1st and 2nd floors of the service were completed, and work was ongoing on the ground floor. A full assessment had been completed to ensure this work caused minimal disruption to people’s lives.

The building was fully accessible to people including those with reduced mobility. There was lift access to all floors, wide corridors, spacious communal areas and an accessible garden.

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.

Leaders were fully aware of people most likely to be at risk of any discrimination. They told us they worked with healthcare professionals to make sure people had access to the care and support they needed. Leaders had identified potential barriers to people accessing care and support and had worked to overcome these to ensure people experienced better outcomes. For example, there were some people who struggled to get out to the dentist for various reasons. Leaders worked with domiciliary dentists to bring this service in for people so they could continue to access oral healthcare.

Leaders worked with dementia specialist staff to find solutions for people’s distress that did not include the overuse of sedating medicines.

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.

People who had decided on a ‘Do Not Attempt Resuscitation’ directive had information on their care records to support staff with guidance about how they should respond if a person’s health deteriorated. At the time of this inspection, no one was receiving end of life care. The registered manager had identified that care records did not always include guidance for staff about people’s wishes regarding end-of-life care. This meant it was not always recorded what people would want if they became very unwell or need emergency care. The registered manager was working to rectify this and had recently facilitated a meeting with relatives to encourage the sharing of relevant information.