Cross Heath Grove

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 changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulations in relation governance at the service.

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.

The provider did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The provider understood the principles of person-centred care, but did not always make sure people received care and support that reflected their individual needs and preferences.

People’s care plans were not always accurate, complete or sufficiently personalised. The provider had introduced a new electronic care-record system. However, information was still being transferred and some records remained incomplete. This increased the risk that staff would not have clear, current and person-centred guidance.

We also found positive examples of staff’s approach delivering person centred care. Staff knew some people well and adapted their communication, including using gestures and visual prompts. Staff offered choices about food and activities, and relatives said staff considered people’s preferences and adapted support to meet their needs.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

The provider worked with people’s relatives and professionals, but care was not always joined up or based on complete and current information.

The service contacted relatives before people stayed to check for changes in their needs, medicines and circumstances. Relatives described good communication and said staff contacted them before visits, involved them in reviews and responded when they raised concerns. Staff also gave examples of working with relatives, community teams and healthcare professionals. However, pre-stay checks did not always obtain or record essential information. For example, for one person with complex health needs, staff could not initially locate the pre-stay call. Their care records stated that emergency medicine was required, but it was not available at the service. The provider later confirmed with the person’s relative that it was no longer prescribed and updated the records. This information had not been confirmed before the stay.

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

The provider generally gave people and those important to them information in ways they could understand and use. Staff used different approaches to support communication. During our observations, staff recognised people’s gestures, sounds and facial expressions and used simple language, gestures and visual prompts to explain what was happening. For example, staff used hand gestures to help one person understand when they would be going home. The person responded in a way that showed they understood.

Relatives said communication was good. They also knew how to contact the service if they needed advice or wished to raise a concern.

The provider generally listened to people and those important to them, involved them in decisions and responded to their feedback. Relatives said they were involved in planning and reviewing care. Most relatives were satisfied with how the service communicated with them and said staff paid attention to the information they provided.

The provider sought feedback through questionnaires, telephone conversations, coffee mornings and meetings. The service had acted on some feedback. This included purchasing new bedding and curtains and arranging an activity requested by a person. Staff also asked people what they wanted to do and offered choices about food, outings and daily routines.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The provider recognised that people had different needs when accessing the service, but systems did not always ensure equitable and timely access to appropriate care and support.

The service completed assessments and pre-stay calls to identify people’s needs. It considered accessibility, mobility, staffing, compatibility with other people and the equipment required.

However, staff did not always identify or respond promptly when people needed access to healthcare and information required to support access was also incomplete. Some assessments and care plans lacked detail about communication, continence, health monitoring and when staff should seek professional advice. This created a risk that people who communicated non-verbally or had more complex needs would not have equal access to timely assessment and treatment.

The provider told us it was reviewing and updating records.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

We could not be assured people were meeting their outcomes or that these were being effectively monitored because we found examples where care plans were not detailed or being implemented.

The provider generally worked with people and those important to them to plan future support and respond to anticipated changes.

The provider considered how people could become familiar with the service through introductory visits. It also considered people’s compatibility, preferred rooms, mobility needs, equipment and required staffing when arranging future stays. Relatives described adjustments that helped people manage anxiety and continue accessing the service.