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

People generally received person-centred care from staff who knew them well. Staff were able to describe people's preferences, routines, interests and support needs. Records demonstrated people were supported to participate in meaningful activities, maintain important relationships and access opportunities which reflected their interests. People were supported to engage with their local community, and their bedrooms had been personalised to reflect their preferences and individuality.

The provider offered a varied programme of activities and enrichment opportunities. These included exercise sessions, arts and crafts, gardening, music events, therapy animal visits, community outings, intergenerational projects and one-to-one engagement for people who preferred quieter activities. Records demonstrated activities were often developed in response to people's feedback, interests and preferences. A staff member described the organisation's approach to engagement as, “Enrichment being everybody's business.”
 

People received care and support from a range of professionals when required. Records demonstrated staff worked alongside GPs, specialist nurses and other healthcare professionals to help ensure people's needs were met. Where people's health needs changed, referrals were made and advice from professionals was incorporated into their care.

People were supported to access information in ways that met their needs. Information was available throughout the service about safeguarding, raising concerns and how to access support. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people's communication needs and how to adapt communication methods to support people's understanding. People had access to external advocacy support where required to help ensure their views were heard and understood.

The provider sought feedback from people and acted on what they were told. Resident meetings took place regularly and people were encouraged to share their views about the service. Records demonstrated actions had been taken in response to feedback, including requests relating to activities, hydration, the environment and communal facilities.

Some people told the provider they wanted increased activity provision during weekends. The provider had recognised this and was recruiting additional enrichment staff to provide 7 day activity coverage. The provider had also introduced resident representatives and maintained systems such as suggestion boxes to support people to share their views and influence how the service was delivered. A relative told us, “When we've spoken to carers with queries they've been very open and they've come back to us straight away.”
 

People were supported to access the care, treatment and support they needed. Records demonstrated the provider worked with healthcare professionals and external agencies to support people with changing health needs. The environment and service provision supported people with a range of physical and cognitive needs.

People were supported to access community facilities, activities and healthcare services which promoted their wellbeing and quality of life. Records demonstrated people attended community outings and events and maintained access to services important to them.
 

The provider did not always effectively review information available about people's experiences and outcomes. We identified safeguarding concerns which had not been recognised or escalated appropriately, and care records did not always accurately reflect people's needs and preferences. We also identified opportunities to improve how people living with dementia were supported to make choices at mealtimes. Whilst people were offered meal choices the day before, the provider had not fully considered the use of show plates or other visual aids to support people, particularly those living with dementia, to make meaningful choices at the point food was served. This reduced assurance that information was always used effectively to identify concerns and continuously improve people's experiences.

In response to our feedback, the provider reviewed records, strengthened oversight arrangements and introduced additional monitoring processes. We will check for sustained improvement at our next assessment.

People were supported to plan for important life events and changes in their health needs. Records demonstrated discussions had taken place regarding future wishes and preferences, including end of life care where appropriate. Families and relevant professionals were involved in these discussions when required. Advance care planning records included information about people's treatment preferences, family involvement and decisions regarding resuscitation. Where advance care planning arrangements had not yet been fully established, the provider had identified this and recorded plans to support future discussions.