Station House

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 the rating has remained 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 provider 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.

Peoples’ care plans contained information about what was meaningful for them, including their likes and preferences. Some people had personal profiles to help staff understand the whole person and what was important to them. Following feedback from audits, staff were making further improvements to this information. People’s bedrooms were very personalised.

The registered manager has been supporting staff to focus on people’s abilities and supporting activities which were meaningful to them. Where people displayed distressed communications, their care plans contained personalised information about how staff could respond to effectively support and de-escalate their concerns.

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 management team was aware of certain pressures within parts of local health systems and worked with health colleagues to support them where possible. They worked with local health and social care partners to provide places for people coming from hospital or home for a period of assessment and/or rehabilitation.

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

The provider had an accessible information policy. People’s communication needs were considered as part of their care plans. The registered manager told us people’s care plans were available to them and/or their relatives should they require this. They told us information could be provided in various formats including easy read and different languages if required.

A “What’s On” newsletter was available to people. The activity co-ordinator shared this information verbally with people where they may be unable to access it. There were examples of communication aids being used, such as the use of braille or an ‘Alexa’ to provide information.

The provider used an app called ‘Relish’ which supported relatives to stay connected to their loved ones. Staff recorded and shared photographs of the activities people undertook. Relatives were able to access these remotely and send messages, helping them to stay in touch.

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.

The provider had a complaints policy and procedure on display. Where complaints had been raised, we saw these were dealt with as per the provider’s policy. Some people told us they knew who they could raise any issues or concerns with; however, others were unsure.

People's feedback was gathered through various meetings. We saw from the latest resident/relative minutes that various topics such as the menu and activities were discussed.

Relative and staff surveys were undertaken, and the provider developed an action plan in response to any issues identified.

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

Staff worked collaboratively with other professionals to ensure people were supported to access health and social care services as required. One person confirmed staff had arranged several services to visit them in the home.

The home was built on one level, with level access throughout. There were adapted bathrooms and signage was in place to guide people around the home. The provider had made some improvements to the courtyard area to ensure the ground was level, they were awaiting handrails to further support independent access to this area. Raised beds had been installed to enable people to enjoy gardening.

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 registered manager understood some people experienced barriers to care. They provided examples where they had advocated on behalf of people and tailored people’s care and support to meet their individual needs.

There was a focus on providing effective care for people living with dementia. Training had been arranged in topics such as understanding effective pain management, when people may be unable to communicate their needs verbally.

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.

The management team were focused on supporting staff to further develop care plans for people, including end of life care. This included staff engagement with people and their relatives to plan their care in line with their wishes and preferences. Information about people’s resuscitation status was included in their care plans.