Regency Hall

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained as requires improvement.

Requires improvement: This meant people’s needs were not always met.

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.

People were generally treated with dignity and respect, and we observed staff interacting with individuals in a caring and considerate manner. However, some people and their relatives told us they were not always involved in planning their care, which limited their ability to influence decisions about how their support was delivered.

Leaders told us the ‘resident of the day’ system involved contacting relatives to include them in reviewing the person’s care. Care plans contained person‑centred information, including details about people’s backgrounds and histories, such as their previous occupations.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The provider sought feedback from people and their relatives through surveys and meetings, giving them regular opportunities to share their views. Where feedback was received, the provider used this to learn and make improvements, which were communicated through a ‘you said, we did’ approach to show how people’s comments had influenced change.

People and relatives told us they knew how to raise concerns and mostly felt confident they would be listened to since the new management team had been in place.

However, one person told us they did not feel staff always had time to listen to them, saying, “staff are too busy to listen”. This indicated that people’s experiences of being heard were not always consistent.

The provider did not always ensure people had equitable access to the care, support and equipment they needed. We were told that reasonable adjustments had not been made for a person who had not been provided with appropriate equipment, resulting in them spending the entire time they had lived in the home in bed. This showed their needs had not been met in a way that promoted independence or supported equal access to daily life.

We were also informed that another person did not have access to suitable equipment and, as a result, spent limited time out of bed because the equipment available was uncomfortable. This demonstrated that people did not always receive the adjustments required to support their individual needs.

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 ensured their staff received training in equality and diversity awareness. This was supported by the provider’s policies and procedures.

The provider ensured staff received awareness training in relation to the Equalities Act 2010 and Mental Capacity Act 2005. This helped ensure staff understood how to support and enable equity in people’s experiences and outcomes.

People had end‑of‑life care plans in place which outlined the support they wished to receive as they approached the end of their life, including how they preferred to be cared for. Where people had Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions in place, this was clearly highlighted within their care plans to guide staff.

We received mixed feedback from relatives about how involved they felt in planning for end‑of‑life care. While some felt included in discussions, others told us they had not been fully involved. This showed that people’s experiences of future planning were not always consistent.