Compton 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 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 person centred to ensure care was provided in accordance with people’s individual needs and preferences. For example, people were supported with personal care in a way and at a time of their choosing to help reduce their anxieties.

People were offered a range of meaningful activities. During our on-site inspection visits numerous activities took place, including external professionals visiting to facilitate a music session. We observed some people were enthusiastically participating in this activity.

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. A relative told us, “Staff liaise with the GP and other health professionals regularly and efficiently.”

Staff had completed training and understood the Equality Act.The registered manager gave us examples of when they had collaborated with other professionals to ensure care was joined up. They also told us some professionals visited people in the home which helped alleviate some of the people’s anxieties. This helped to remove some of the barriers to care.

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

People had communication aids in place, including electronic tablets and communication boards.

Numerous easy read documents were available, and the registered manager evidenced how these had been used to support people. This meant people could make their needs and wishes known to staff.

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.

They involved people in decisions about their day-to-day care and told them what had changed as a result.

People living in the home were asked for their views in a variety of formats throughout the year, these included in daily conversations, meetings with their keyworkers, and through surveys. Action plans were devised from these meetings and survey’s and were shared with people. This meant people’s views were listened to and drove improvement.

The registered manager told us, where needed they engaged the use of advocacy services to ensure people were heard.

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

Staff understood the needs of autistic people and people with a learning disability and worked hard to ensure typical barriers faced by people were removed or mitigated against.

Each person had a hospital passport in place. We reviewed these documents and noted people’s individual risks and health conditions were included. This could be shared with other professionals to reduce potential barriers to care within the health and social care system.

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 understood how the Equality Act applied to their role. Staff treated people as individuals and made reasonable adjustments for anyone who needed them.

The registered manager gave us an example of how they ensure people are given the opportunity to vote at local elections.

People were not always 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.

Although end of life care was not required at this time, we found some people’s end of life plans contained minimal details which did not include how a person would want to be supported at the end of their life. This meant the provider had not considered people’s future and end of life planning to ensure if people’s health were to deteriorate, staff would know how people wanted to be cared for at the end of their lives. We spoke with the provider about this, who told us they would try to engage people and their relatives to add this additional information.