Options The Old Vicarage

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.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated requires improvement.

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

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.

People did not always receive person-centred care which reflected best practice and met their needs. Whilst people and their relatives told us they were happy with their care and able to make choices. There had not always been enough support to enhance their quality of life and try new things. A person told us, “I am really happy living here.” People were involved in making decisions about their care. Staff knew people well and were able to tell us about their needs. Staff supported people in a personalised way. Care plans were clear and provided information about people’s needs. These were regularly reviewed.

Staff supported people to receive continuity of care. Staff worked well together to provide consistent care and support. Care plans were clear, and staff followed these. Staff had training to understand best practice. Staff liaised with external professionals to help make sure people could access the services they needed.

The provider ensured people had information about their care and the service. There was a range of pictorial and written information for people on notice boards around the home. This included information about staff on duty, activities and how to complain.

There were folders offering different meal options and people were encouraged to use these to help plan their meals. Staff offered people choices using a range of words, visual clues, prompts and objects of reference.

The provider produced resources in a range of different formats. For example, easy to read guides and procedures. The provider developed communication care plans and guides for staff to understand how each person communicated. People used personal electronic devices to help communicate their needs and feelings.

Some relatives told us they had not always felt involved or well informed. A relative explained that they had experienced a lack of support from managers when meeting external professionals. Some told us they had asked for information which had not been provided. Some relatives said they did not feel their opinions had been respected. However, all relatives told us they felt things had improved. They explained they had recently met or spoken with managers to discuss their relative’s care. They told us they had been assured these meetings would take place regularly and they would be able to contribute their views.

People using the service told us staff listened to them and respected their views.

There was a suitable complaints procedure. People using the service and relatives knew who to speak with if they had concerns or complaints.

People using the service, relatives and staff were invited to complete surveys about their experiences. Feedback from these was analysed by senior managers. There were facilities for people using the service, visitors and staff to share feedback using QR codes linked to the provider’s systems. These were on display at the service.

Staff supported people to access a range of different services. For example, within the local community and accessing healthcare services. A staff member attended a medical appointment with 1 person on the day of our visit. They told us, “Even though [person] is independent in a lot of ways, we attend appointments with [them]. [Person] gets anxious and needs help to understand what the doctors are saying.” Some people attended college and staff supported them to access the courses and to liaise with college staff.

A staff member raised a concern that not all people had equity of experience. They felt some people did not have the same cultural opportunities as others and that their needs were not always met. We discussed this with senior managers. Whilst they were able to describe a range of cultural opportunities for these people, they agreed to investigate these concerns and liaise with people’s relatives and staff to make sure people had equity in experience and outcomes.

Staff undertook training about equality and human rights. People’s care plans included information about their individual needs and lifestyle choices. Relatives told us people’s human rights were respected. The provider had procedures regarding diversity and inclusion.

Staff had supported people to plan objectives and goals for the future. However, these did not always consider people’s best interests or provide challenging opportunities. For example, a relative told us they would like staff to explore employment opportunities for 1 person. Another person had not left the house for over a year due to their anxiety about this. The provider had recognised they needed to address this issue. However, there was no structured plan in place to achieve this at the time of our assessment. A relative told us that, whilst staff promoted their relative’s independence in some ways, they felt the person needed a mentor or better guidance to reach their potential.