Friary 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

The service was previously in breach ofthe legal regulationin relation to personcenteredcare. Improvements were found at this assessment, and the service was no longer in breach of this regulation.

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.

The provider developed person centred care plans with people and their relatives. Thoughtful additions had been made to people’s care routines. For example, for a person who experienced poor sleep at night they would ensure they were left to sleep in the following day and woken in time for lunch rather than getting them up at their usual time, so they were refreshed and rested.

Relatives told us, “The initial meeting was done with [person] and the family at their home, and they (registered manager and deputy manager) took a full case history, and a care plan was put together. They went into a lot of detail.” A second relative was pleased at how their family member’s care was managed and said, “[Their spouse] can get quite stressed talking about [their] care, so whenever there is a review or any changes, the registered manager contacts me and we go through it together.” This prevented unnecessary worrying for the relative.

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.

The provider had positive working relationships with local health and social care professionals and worked with them to ensure care was as seamless as possible. Referrals were made by the management team as required. A healthcare professional confirmed this saying, “From a medical perspective, they raise concerns about residents appropriately, using the systems we have in place when appropriate (weekly routine care home visit, Monday - Friday urgent care home triage)”.

New information about people was shared at handover meetings and advice from healthcare professionals followed by staff.

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

The provider understood their responsibilities under the Accessible Information Standard. The registered manager told us they used large print resources, flip cards, talking books and newspapers. Flip cards were used after a person experienced a stroke; large print bank statements were arranged for a person who had deterioration in their eyesight. So far, people had not needed different languages but the provider would look into this as required.

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.

The registered and deputy managers had an open-door approach and welcomed staff, people and relatives into their office to speak whenever they wanted. This meant there was an open culture and there was no fear in speaking up.

There had been 2 questionnaires issued to people and relatives since our previous inspection. Both had very positive outcomes with staff’s knowledge of people scoring a particularly good result.

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

The registered manager worked with healthcare professionals to support people in managing health conditions that may affect their participation in fulfilling lives. For example, a person could have treatment to reduce the impact of a debilitating condition however it was not available locally. The registered manager had worked to source where the treatment could be provided and was supporting the person and their relatives in accessing the service.

Guidance from healthcare professionals had been included in peoples care plans and supported them in maintaining their well-being and enabling them to access the service and at times their community safely.

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.

During initial and ongoing assessments, person-centred information such as people’s life histories and how they want care to be given was recorded. This information was used to create care plans which enabled people to fully participate in life at Friary House, should they wish to.

At times, the provider also went the ‘extra mile’. They recently arranged an anniversary meal at a local hotel and supported people to attend so they could experience an everyday evening out to celebrate their special occasion. Other people also participated in meals out in a local hotel and fish and chip suppers regardless of their needs.

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.

We saw some care records had end of life care plans that were detailed and contained person-centred information about where people wanted to spend their last days, with whom and whether they wanted to be admitted to hospital. Some care records did not have detailed plans; however, they were reviewed and people and relatives had been asked whether they wanted to add information to them. These stated whether a person had a do not attempt cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) directive to ensure they did not receive unwanted lifesaving treatment.