Fleetwood Heights

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 71 (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 always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Overall people and relatives were happy with the care provided. However, there was a lack of consistency in people’s care plans. Some were detailed and person-centred, however others were not always accurate, up to date or fully reflective of the person’s needs. For example, one person’s care plan gave conflicting information about wound care and pressure relieving equipment and another person’s care plan referred to sensor equipment which was not being used. The provider took action to address these issues when we raised them.

Staff said communication about people’s needs was generally good. However, care staff were not involved in shift handovers and said there was a lack of consistency in the information that was passed over by the nurses. Examples were given where people’s needs had changed and care staff had not been informed.

he 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.

Staff worked with other healthcare professionals and external agencies in a collaborative way to ensure care was well co-ordinated. People’s care records showed staff supported people in accessing specialist support.

Community links were being established, which included a weekly dementia café and contact with the local church. An outing was planned to a local garden centre, and a drama company were booked for a performance of Puss in Boots in the service.

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

Information was displayed in the service in a variety of accessible formats. This included pictorial menus and activity boards as well as guidance on safeguarding, how to make a complaint, and how to speak up if people felt unhappy or unsafe. This information was also included in the service user guide provided to people on admission.

A monthly newsletter was distributed to people and their relatives providing updates on events.

People’s communication needs were documented in their care plans. This included details of preferred methods of communication and any specific aids or adaptations required to support understanding.

Throughout the service, appropriate signage was in place to help people navigate the environment safely and independently. Signage was clear, well-positioned, and where necessary, adapted to meet the needs of those living with cognitive impairments or sensory disabilities.

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.

Resident and relative meetings were held regularly giving people and their families an opportunity to provide feedback, raise concerns, and share suggestions. Actions taken in response to the most recent meeting were displayed on a ‘You Said, We Did’ board in the home. Notices about forthcoming meetings were displayed in the service.

Visitors to the home were able to provide digital feedback on the service when they logged in at reception. Recent scores rated the service highly.

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

The service was fully accessible to people, and they were supported to make full use of all areas of the home, including the communal areas and garden. This ensured people could enjoy a variety of spaces to support both their wellbeing and their independence. The environment had been designed in a way to promote freedom of movement and choice, with no unnecessary restrictions placed on people’s access to communal areas.

People had access to staff support 24 hours a day through the use of call bells in their bedrooms and other areas of the home. Additionally, sensor mats were in place where appropriate to alert staff when people needed assistance, particularly at night.

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.

The provider had an equality, diversity, and human rights policy in place to protect people and staff against discrimination. Staff had completed equality and diversity training.

People and relatives told us they had not experienced or witnessed any form of discrimination within the service and said staff always treated them with respect. Comments included, “They treat me like a human being. Nothing is too much trouble for them” and “I don’t think the folk here know the word discrimination. They all seem so kind and caring with everyone.”

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 plans were in place providing information about people’s decisions regarding end-of-life care and to ensure staff knew how to support people to have a comfortable and dignified death.

We saw feedback from relatives which thanked staff for the ‘wonderful care and kindness’ shown to their loved one and their family.