Hunsbury 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 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.

Staff understood the principles of person-centred care and how to apply this in practice.

The interactions that we observed between staff and people during the assessment were person-centred. Staff understood people’s likes and dislikes and worked with them to shape their daily routines, activities and engagement in ways that reflected what mattered to them.

Care notes were completed and included details of any event, activities and interactions. There was an ‘all about me’ document about people, this detailed important people in their life, things that are important to them, important events, things they are good and likes and dislikes.

People had personalised their rooms according to their preferences and we observed these represented people’s interests. For example, a person’s favourite football team was evident in their bedroom.

People had individual care plans which were regularly reviewed, although more work was required to evidence the involvement of people and their relatives in reviews and evaluations.

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 a consistent staff team who worked alongside the organisation’s MDT, which included managers, nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, psychologists and therapy assistants. This meant people had access to a range of professional support designed to meet their assessed needs. Feedback we received about the MDT was positive, and records showed that MDT meetings took place on a weekly basis.

The service was registered to provide nursing care. However, to promote independence and ensure people did not rely on support from a clinical practitioner, a registered nurse was not present on site twenty four hours a day.

The provider employed a physical health nurse who visited the service regularly and maintained oversight of people’s physical health needs. In addition, support staff had access to nursing support at all times through the provider’s on‑call system.
 

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

The provider had a range of easy-read documents available, for example, a service user guide was supplied to new people joining the service. The registered manager told us this was available in other accessible formats, including other languages, if required. We also saw some easy-read materials had been produced to support with mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions. For example, in relation to CCTV.

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.

People and their relatives had access to information about how to make a complaint and felt confident raising any concerns.

Staff told us they listened to people and ensured they were involved in their care. For example, a staff member told us, “We have regular resident meetings, these are usually once a month, everyone gets involved.”

The provider carried out annual satisfaction surveys for people and their relatives. Although the results of previous surveys were shared by the provider, they were in the process of carrying out the annual surveys at the time of the assessment. The provider shared their new surveys that had been reviewed to improve accessibility.

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

The service had effective systems and processes in place to ensure all at the service were able to access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed. They had built relationships with other health care providers to improve the access for people at the service. For example, the local GP was also a member of the provider’s MDT.

The provider had an on-call policy in place so a member of the management team could always be contacted and the provider showed us their business continuity plan, which confirmed there were plans in place to minimise disruption to the service in an emergency.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care records were not always tailored in response to this.

Leaders and staff recognised the barriers people living with a disability and other diagnosis people may face and provided staff with relevant training. The provider was supporting people to achieve their outcomes, however, records did not always reflect this. We were not assured all peoples communication preferences had been considered as part of their care planning. For example, where people whose first language was not English, or who were also able to speak another language, there was not adequate information in relation to people’s communication preferences in their care plans. This meant we could not be assured care records were always tailored in response to people’s needs to ensure they achieving their desired outcomes.

Although 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. Records did not aways provide sufficient guidance for staff.

At the time of our assessment no one was receiving end of life care.

Staff were aware of people’s resuscitation status and there was some evidence of people’s wishes in a death and dying care plan. For example, one care plan identified where a person wanted to be buried. However, improvement was needed in relation to developing people’s future plans and recording these.

The provider had an end-of-life working group supporting the development of these practices across the organisation. However, a staff member told us, “If end of life care was required this would be provided in line with the persons wishes.”