Featherton 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.

People’s care planning contained detailed information about their choices, likes and dislikes around food, personal care and their abilities and what support was required. Staff knew people well and knew their likes and dislikes.One staff member we spoke with told us, “I know that a person likes to have breakfast before [their] personal care, so [they] will be the first person I give breakfast to when I start my shift.”

Relatives told us they were kept informed of any changes to people’s needs and involved in decisions about care and support. One relative we spoke with told us, “We have a relationship that [staff] update me when I come in. The manager has updated me in the past.”

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.

Staff worked in partnership with health and social care professionals to ensure people’s needs were met. For example, staff collaborated with physiotherapists, speech and language therapists and GPs to support people living at the home. The registered manager told us if they felt someone’s needs had changed and they required additional support; they would make a referral to the local authority for a new care needs assessment.

People were supported by a consistent staff team. This meant people received continuity of care, by staff who knew them and their needs well.

People had a communication log in their care plans. Staff documented when people were visited by relatives or professionals and when updates had been provided to the staff team. This meant staff, external professionals and relatives were kept up to date with people’s needs.

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

People’s care plans contained clear guidance around their communication needs and preferences, such as sensory impairments and their preferred communication methods. This meant people received information in a way that was relevant to them.

The provider offered documents in alternative formats such as large print for those who required it.

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.

There were policies and procedures in place that set out the steps if people or relatives needed to make a complaint. One person we spoke with told us, “If I complained they’d deal with it straight away.” One relative we spoke with told us, “I did complain once, it was taken seriously.” This meant people and their relatives felt confident to raise concerns and felt confident they would be listened to.

The provider regularly held resident meetings which allowed people the opportunity to talk about things that were important to them. One person we spoke with told us, “Sometimes I go to residents’ meetings, they are useful, especially about food.”

Records evidenced people’s feedback was sought by completing questionnaires. One relative we spoke with told us, “We have received a questionnaire.”

The registered manager told us they held relatives’ meetings every 6 months, however not all relatives we spoke with were aware of this. One relative we spoke with told us, “I’ve never heard of relatives meetings, I think there’s residents’ meetings.” This meant not all relatives were aware of how they could provide feedback or receive updates. The registered manager acknowledged the process for relative meetings needed to be improved.

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

The provider was aware of people who may face inequality and tailored care and support in response to this. They demonstrated an understanding of individual circumstances and took steps to ensure people received equitable and personalised support. For example, 1 person enjoyed animal visits at the home but was unable to leave their room to participate. Their care plan specified that during these visits, the animals should be brought to their room so they could still take part. This demonstrated how staff proactively adapted support to remove barriers and promote equality and wellbeing.

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.

Care planning processes considered a range of individual factors, including age, gender, religion, disability, and other protected characteristics. People were allocated key workers, and staff usually supported the same people.

There were clear policies in place to promote equality and meet diverse needs. Staff received training in equality, diversity, and inclusion.

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 had a proactive care planning document which detailed their wishes in the event they developed a new long term health condition, were approaching the end of their life, or required decisions about life saving treatment. These documents captured people’s preferences clearly, helping ensure their choices would be understood, respected and acted upon should their circumstances change. This proactive approach supported people to have control over future care decisions and helped staff to deliver care in line with each person’s wishes.