Dickley 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 meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (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.

Care plans were detailed in relation to people’s care and support needs. Care plans were person centred and included individual preferences, likes, dislikes and favoured routines. The care plans did not include goals and aspirations for people, however as people were only accessing the service for short stays as respite care there was minimal impact.

Relatives told us they had been involved in developing and reviewing care plans. They said the service was involved in wider reviews of people’s care and support through attendance at review meetings within education settings such as school or college.

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.

Information was shared with staff during handover regarding any changes to people’s health or care needs. The service worked with other health professionals involved in people’s care. Staff told us how they supported people and their relatives. Relatives told us, they felt staff communicated well with them. A relative said, “They work with us as a family.” Another relative told us, “I feel that it is safe, there is open and clear communication.”

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

We observed communication was tailored to meet people’s needs. There were easy read documents in place if anyone needed them. We observed staff using flash cards and individualised communication systems with people.

Staff reported some people used Makaton sign language to communicate. Some staff said they would benefit from further Makaton training to help them support people more effectively as they had only received the basic level, so they were not always aware of some signs used by people.

Relatives told us communication met their loved ones needs. Comments included, “He is non-verbal and uses PECS (picture exchange communication system) and an iPad but mainly from gestures or leads by the hand etc. He is quite expressive, mostly happy, and they know how to read him very well” and “He does understand verbal communication. He points and can say some words, the more you get to know him the more you understand him. They send me photos of days out: His favourite place is Chessington. They took him there and then told me how he spent the day. He did what I expected him to do so I know he could communicate what he wanted with them.”

There was a lack of easy read signage and way marking around the service to direct and orientate people around the service. There was no easy read signage on doors such as toilets, bathrooms and shower rooms. The impact of this was minimal as staff supported most people to move around the service.

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.

We observed good practice from staff in relation to listening and involving people with their care and making decisions. The registered manager told us that surveys were optional at the end of each person’s stay.

Relatives were provided with carehome.co.uk information so they could make comments about the service. Comments made on here included, ‘My son is happy there and it feels like a second home to him. Staff are nice, positive and committed and support my son with his daily living and independence skills. They provide regular updates when my son stays there and provide him with opportunities to try different activities. I am thankful that my son gets the same room every time he stays there which is important for his stability’ and ‘Our daughter has attended Dickley Court for many years and absolutely adores it there. When we collect her, she asks when she will be going back. The staff are all very kind, helpful and clearly go the extra mile to build a bond with the clients. They know our daughter very well, her routines, likes/dislikes, capabilities and care needs etc.’

The provider had received written compliments from relatives about the service, which were shared with the staff team. One read, ‘Just wanted to say a massive thank you to everyone at Dickley Court who looked after [person]. He was full of the activities (he had done when he was there) and had a very good time.’

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

There was a clear admissions criteria and people’s needs were assessed before using the service. People would only not be admitted if the provider had assessed that staff did not have the appropriate skills to provide safe care to an individual.

People were supported with emergency medical appointments and any routine or follow-up appointments that needed to take place during their stay. There were processes in place to ensure that people could receive care, support and treatment when they needed it. The service utilised the local GP surgery as a walk in service if people became unwell during their stay.

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.

Staff were made aware of the provider’s equality and diversity policy at induction. The management team were not aware of Right support, right care, right culture (RSRCRC). This applies to services for people with autism or people with a learning disability to ensure they receive the respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local amenities that most people take for granted. We shared the guidance to RSRCRC with the management team to enable them to develop care plans further. However, people using the service were treated with respect, their choices and independence was promoted. The ethos of the Dickley Court short breaks service was to provide people with the opportunity to make friends, try new activities and gain skills. This was done by working in partnership with local organisations and by supporting people to engage in recreational activities in the local community.

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.

Nobody using Dickley Court short breaks service was in receipt of end of life care. People utilised the service for short breaks to give their care givers respite care.

People’s goals for how they wanted to be cared for were included in their care planning, together with the actions needed to achieve these goals. For example, a person’s care plan showed they were able to clean their own teeth. In order to achieve this staff were advised to prompt them to clean their teeth.