Martlet Manor

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 service met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 service 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.

The service ensured care was person-centred and reflected the individual needs of the people they supported. Care plans and risk assessments were tailored to their individual needs.

Staff adapted their support to reflect people’s individual routines, preferences and changing needs, helping people to achieve positive experiences and outcomes.

Staff were observed to respond calmly and respectfully to requests and to take ownership of people’s concerns in the moment.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People experienced continuity of care from regular staff who knew their needs and followed structured care plans. Staff were aware of key professionals and community contacts should they need to use these. People were registered with a local GP practice and other local health services where required. The GP made a regular weekly visit to the home, and staff took people to the practice if required.

People were supported to use the local community, for example, for meals out, park walks and any events taking place locally. The registered manager told us the home had an annual open day that was planned in collaboration with residents.

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

People and family members told us told us they received the information they needed in a timely manner and that there was generally good communication between them and the provider.

People’s care plans, risk assessments and the service user guide were clear and written in plain language. Large print versions of information were available if required. Accessible information was provided to people with hearing impairments in accordance with their individual preferences.

At the time of this inspection no one required information in other languages or formats. The registered manager told us information would be provided in other formats if required in the future.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People we spoke with told us they were listened to and involved in decisions about their care. Staff sought feedback from people on a regular basis, including through a monthly resident’s meeting. People and their families knew how to make a complaint if required and generally reported positive experiences of being able to raise and resolve these.

The provider had kept a record and audit of complaints. We saw complaints raised had been resolved to the complainant’s satisfaction.

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

People were supported to choose and agree how and when they wished their care and support to be provided.

The service was flexible, and people told us they were aware that they could request changes to their care plans.

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’s care plans included information about their histories and any cultural, social and other diversity needs. Guidance for staff was included to ensure the care and support they provided was respectful of individual needs and preferences.

The provider’s equality and diversity policies and procedures reflected current best practice. All staff had received equality and diversity training. Staff were provided with up-to-date information about best practice in supporting people likely to experience inequality regular supervision sessions and via information provided by the provider.

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’s care plans included information about their end-of-life wishes should they wish to provide this. Some information was included in their care plans about end-of-life care arrangements should this be required.

The registered manager told us that, where possible, and in accordance with people’s wishes, they would be supported to stay at the home at end of life unless they required hospital or other specialist support which they were unable to deliver. We saw evidence the service had liaised with palliative care teams and other relevant professionals where required.