Middleton Fells

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 newly registered service. This key question has been rated as good. This meant 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.

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 and records were person-centred and reflected peoples physical, mental, emotional and social needs. However, some contained information that was not accurate or reflective of peoples’ current needs. Relatives told us they were regularly involved in the planning and the reviewing of care and support. People where appropriate were consulted with about changes to their needs or decisions about them.

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.

People’s individual needs and outcomes had been appropriately assessed for the type of service they received. The service worked flexibly and joined up with relatives. Relative’s we spoke with were generally satisfied with the care and support people received. Care and support was tailored to meet individuals’ needs and risks.

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

People’s communication needs were recorded, reviewed, and were considerate of the Accessible Information Standards. Care plans recognised how people could engage in a meaningful way to make some decisions for themselves. However, where one person used Makaton as their communication tool not all staff were trained in its use. Relatives told us they were kept informed when changes happened in peoples’ care needs. Information available in the home was provided in different formats suitable for people’s differing needs.

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 care.

Peoples concerns and complaints were recorded and responded to. People were provided with opportunities to give feedback about the home. Family members told us they felt confident sharing their views with staff and could approach management at any time with any concerns. A relative told us, “They always ask my opinion and always consult me first.” Surveys were sent out by the service to collect feedback from family members. There were procedures in place for people to raise complaints formally if they wanted to do so.

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

People’s needs and what reasonable adjustments they needed had been implemented. The building had been adapted to ensure it was accessible to people, appropriate aids, adaptions were in place. There was an on-call system in place for out of hours support to ensure people and staff could access support when they needed it.

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, people and family members did not identify any concerns about discrimination. Relatives were clear that people’s right were upheld and they were treated and respected as individuals

People were fully supported by well trained and experienced staff who when could ensure their rights and equalities were upheld. People's diversity and their unique individual needs were noticeably well-respected by staff.

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.

People were treated equally and their care and treatment adapted to meet their individual needs. Staff had access to policies and training to support their understanding of people’s rights, discrimination and inequalities. Barriers to accessing some services had been recognised and these were being challenged. People and their families were supported to express their decisions around Do Not Attempt Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR), and these wishes were recorded in care plans. People’s end of life wishes, if they were able to make them, and those of their relatives, where appropriate, were also recorded.