Highlea Care Limited

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 this key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 61 (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. Detailed support plans were in place, but these did not consistently identify or record people’s support needs and choices. For 1 person a communication plan had not identified how they could be supported to engage more effectively with those around them. For another person information was missing on the relationships of importance to them, which was added after we discussed this with the registered manager. People were not always supported to set and achieve goals in their care, meaning it was not always clear how they were in control of their lives. We discussed this with the provider and registered manager, who said records would be reviewed and improved.

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 worked with healthcare partners in delivering integrated support to people.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. A range of easy read policies had been developed for people to use, including in relation safeguarding and how people could exercise their democratic rights such as voting. However, in other areas policies only referred to the provider as a national organisation and did not include information relevant to people living locally, such as who to contact if they had a complaint. Meeting minutes were also not available in easy read formats people could access. Relatives we spoke with said they did not always know who local service leaders were.

Systems were not always in place to obtain feedback from people about their care. Meetings were held at which people were asked about their support and if there was anything they would like to change. However, relatives were not always involved in giving feedback or ideas about people’s care.

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

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 were supported to access community facilities and live as full a life as possible.

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. Some people had records covering their future plans but these were not always completed.