Birkdale Court

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 64 (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.

Not all care plan information was accurate, which meant staff did not always have reliable guidance to support people safely and effectively. Although the plans were designed to be person-centred and provided clear instructions, inconsistencies in the content meant we could not be assured they reflected people’s current needs. We raised these concerns with the provider. They told us the care plans had been recently reviewed and agreed to check and clarify the accuracy of the information.

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 collaborated with external professionals to help ensure people's needs were met. This included engaging with healthcare services and other partner organisations where appropriate to support people's health, wellbeing, and overall quality of life. One health professional told us, “It is really positive working with them, we cannot fault them. They are really engaging, looking for advice, they really want to improve the service for staff and residents.”

The provider did not always supply information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Since 2016 all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard. The Accessible Information Standard tells organisations what they have to do to help ensure people with a disability or sensory loss, and in some circumstances, their carers, get information in a way they can understand it. It also says that people should get the support they need in relation to communication.

The Accessible Information Standard (AIS) was not fully embedded within the service. This meant people were not consistently provided with information in formats that supported their individual communication needs. Some accessible information was available; however, this was not consistently in place. The menu, for instance, was displayed in a small font in the lounge corner, making it difficult for people to see and easy to miss. In addition, there was not always easy-read information, symbols, or pictures around communal areas to support people in navigating the home. We raised these issues with the provider. They told us they would make changes to improve accessibility.

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.

The provider did not consistently seek or act on the views of people using the service to drive improvement. At the time of our assessment, there was no recent survey of people’s experiences, which meant the provider could not demonstrate they had proactively gathered feedback from people about their care, treatment, and support. Despite this, feedback from relatives and staff indicated they felt listened to and able to raise concerns. One relative told us, “I feel fully listened to, everyone is approachable.”

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

The building was accessible to people using wheelchairs or with limited mobility. Ramps with gradual gradients were in place throughout the building. The garden area was accessible for all,with raised beds allowing people with limited mobility to look at the plants or take part in gardening activities. People were supported to have access to health and social care professionals and services as and when required.

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. Staff had received training in equality, diversity and inclusion. This meant staff had knowledge and understanding about how to support everyone to feel valued and respected, with equal access to opportunities.

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. Where people wished to discuss their end of life wishes, these were documented in their care plans. This included the people they would like with them and details of funeral arrangements.