April 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.This means 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.

People were pleased with their care and support, as were their relatives. People told us they made plans with their key workers about things they wanted to do. A relative described how staff planned and delivered care that was centred around the person. They described staff as having "people's interests at heart".

Staff knew people well and understood the care they needed. Their priority was that care should be centred around people's needs and wishes.

People took part in their chosen individual activities, both at home and out, with support from staff if they needed it.

Staff followed people's care plans, providing the care and support they needed.

People's care plans were individualised, reflecting what was important to them. Care plans fully reflected people's physical, mental, emotional and social needs.

People had access to health care when they needed it. They talked about having appointments to see doctors and dentists. Staff supported them as needed at these appointments.

The registered manager appreciated the importance of thorough assessments of need when people moved to or from April Court.

The management team had positive links with local health and social care services, understanding who was involved in people's support and why. They recognised when to involve professionals if there were concerns about a person's health and support needs.

Staff were persistent in supporting people to access health services if there were difficulties in getting suitable appointments.

Health and social care professionals had complimented the service for working with them effectively.

The service worked effectively with health and social care professionals, so people had a positive experience of moving to April Court or moving on elsewhere. Thorough assessments of need had supported this.

People communicated easily with staff, who understood and responded to them. Conversations were not rushed, staff taking time to listen to people.

Staff received the training they needed to support people with communication. For example, some people used a sign language to help them communicate, and staff were able to use it with them.

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 people should get the support they need in relation to communication.

The April Court staff group followed the Accessible Information Standard. Assessments identified people's communication needs. Care plans highlighted and addressed these, explaining communication needs comprehensively and clearly. Staff provided the support people needed with communication. Information was provided in formats people understood, such as easy read and pictures.

People's confidential personal information was stored securely online and in paper folders. Staff recorded people's consent, or best interests decisions in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005, to share information with specified other parties. These included their family, education or activity providers, or health and social care providers. Their wishes were recorded.

People often gave feedback to staff about their experiences, whether during 1:1 conversations or at house meetings. Relatives told us they felt comfortable to raise concerns or queries with the management team if they needed to. They also told us about the service's quality forum meetings, which had started within the past year.

The registered manager viewed compliments, concerns and complaints as opportunities for learning. Any learning was shared with staff.

The service had set up quality forum meetings, aimed at relatives, in recent months. These were intended as a supportive forum for sharing news about the service, discussing topics of interest to carers and obtaining their views and input into things happening at April Court.

The registered manager understood the role of advocacy services and knew how people could be referred to them if the need arose.

There was a log of compliments, concerns and complaints, with records of investigations, learning and any contacts with the complainant. Concerns and complaints were addressed thoroughly and fairly, with feedback for people about what had been done. The provider updated their complaints policy during the inspection to include current information about how to escalate a complaint to an external organisation.

People and their relatives said they had the support they needed from the service.

Staff were aware of any reasonable adjustments people needed to enter fully into life at April Court. This was considered as a matter of course during reviews of assessments and care plans.

Staff recognised the importance of people not facing barriers to access health and social care services. They spoke up for people who were having difficulty getting appointments.

Health and social care professionals had provided positive feedback to the service about how well staff worked with them.

The premises were accessible to people with mobility needs. People could access the upper floor of the building by stairs or using the passenger lift. One of the bathrooms had a bath with a lifting facility, and there were wet rooms.

Staff provided people with any support they needed to communicate.

People and relatives said staff treated them or their family member fairly. They were confident staff worked well with them to help them achieve their goals and ambitions. Relatives valued seeing photos of their family member enjoying pastimes, celebrations and special occasions.

It was important to staff that they treated people fairly and without discrimination.

People's care and support promoted equality and upheld their human rights.

Staff supported people to raise concerns about inequity and discrimination they experienced, if people wished. For example, when people had experienced harassment from people outside April Court, staff supported them to report this to the police.

People had been involved in planning and reviewing their end-of-life care wishes.

Staff were proud the service had attained the highest level of recognition under a nationally recognised scheme that promotes excellence in end-of-life care. They were preparing for the service's forthcoming reaccreditation assessment.

Staff had training in end-of-life care.

People had individualised plans for end-of-life care, which specified where they would prefer to be cared for in their final days, and what they would like to happen after their death, including preferences for their funeral. The plans were presented in an accessible format. Staff had developed these plans in consultation with people and their families, where people wished to discuss end of life matters.

Staff regularly reviewed people's health status, noting any indications their health might be declining. They contacted health professionals if they thought the person might be reaching the end of their life, to prescribe and administer medicines the person might need to remain settled and pain free.

Some people had 'allow a natural death' forms, also known as 'do not attempt cardio-pulmonary resuscitation' forms. These had been drawn up by doctors in consultation with people or their families, in line with Mental Capacity Act 2005 principles.