ABI Homes - Roman 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 meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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 did not consistently make sure people were given the opportunities to do the things they said they enjoyed doing. Care plans contained details around people’s preferences in relation to what they enjoyed doing at home and outside. Whilst some people did participate in a number of things they enjoyed, records showed others did not, despite them being allocated one to one support to do so. Records were unclear what alternatives had been offered or attempts made to encourage participation. We raised this with the provider who developed an action plan to review these areas.

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. Visiting professionals told us the staff were responsive and receptive to them, and they worked in collaboration to achieve the best outcomes for people.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Care plans contained information about meeting people’s communication needs. Our observations showed staff knew people well and were able to anticipate their needs and wishes. A relative said, “[Person] uses signs and physical behaviour to communicate their needs, choice or dissatisfaction. The staff have good understanding of [Person’s] communication.”

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. For example, staff would sit with people monthly to review how they were, if they had any concerns or would like to do anything different. This feedback was used to support people to maintain independence and to promote new activities and events the person might wish to get involved in.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Records showed people had been supported to access external health professionals and appointments whenever they needed to.

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 supported people to go food and clothes shopping and supported people with meal preparation at home. People were also supported to go on holidays of their choice. We saw people had recently been supported to go to the seaside.

At the time of our assessment, nobody was approaching the end of their life. People were supported to plan future goals and wishes however this was not always clearly documented and people’s progress towards meeting these goals could be improved. The provider listened to our feedback and shared ideas on what they had done in the past and could re-introduce to support people in visualising their progress.