Raleigh 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 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 choices andthey decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’sneeds.

Staff knew each person well and used this knowledge to tailor care. Care plans clearly described people’s histories, preferences, routines and communication styles. Staff supported people to choose clothes and activities, and promoted independence wherever possible, including encouraging people to wash, dress and participate in household tasks in line with their abilities.

People were actively involved in their care within the limits of their communication and decision‑making capacity. Staff used people’s communication profiles to interpret their choices, including supporting those with limited verbal communication to indicate yes/no responses.

Feedback from partner agencies supported this. An advocate told us the service was “person‑centred and encouraged independence where appropriate”.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their localcommunities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People benefitted from a stable, experienced staff team who knew them well. Staff worked well together to provide continuity of care and integrated advice from health care professionals. Staff shared information at handovers about any changes in people’s needs so everyone was kept well informed.

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

There were detailed communication profiles in people’s records explaining how each person expressed preferences, discomfort and enjoyment. Staff understood these well and used them confidently. We observed staff checking people’s understanding, repeating questions, and providing choices in simple, accessible ways.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints abouttheir care and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and toldthem what had changed as a result.

We observed warm, respectful interactions. Staff confirmed that “documented in people’s care records was information about how [people] wished to be cared for” and that staff used this information in practice. Feedback from the advocate confirmed people were included and supported to express their views.

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

Staff were aware of people’s individual differences and adapted their approach to ensure there was equity in access to health and social care services, and activities and engagement. Staff were working to introduce more on‑site activities and source transport so that all people could access community options equally.

There were no restrictions on visitors, and policies such as equalities and accessible information were current and available.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care and support in response to this.

The provider made sure people had fair and positive experiences of care and achieved outcomes consistent with their needs, preferences and protected characteristics. Our observations across both inspection days showed staff were attentive to people’s needs and adapted their approach to ensure people’s individual needs were met.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time tomake informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

The staff team knew people well and what was important to them, so this could be provided towards the end of their life. Staff worked with other health and social care professionals to make best interests decisions about important care decisions, such as do not attempt cardio pulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions.