Aria Court

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 and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

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.

Care and support was reviewed and adjusted in response to changes in people’s needs through regular care reviews and ongoing monitoring. Staff demonstrated awareness of when needs changed and worked with people, relatives and professionals to ensure care remained appropriate.

Where needs changed, care plans were updated to reflect new risks, preferences or support requirements. Staff told us they responded to changes by escalating concerns to relevant healthcare professionals and adjusting support in line with advice received.

People were supported to remain involved in decisions about changes to their care where possible, with staff offering choices and explaining options in a way people could understand.

Feedback from people and relatives was used to inform adjustments to care delivery. Feedback from relatives indicated positive experiences of engagement. One family member said their relative had been “doing well” and requested that additional activities be made available, reflecting satisfaction with the level of engagement and stimulation provided.

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 service had systems in place to support continuity of care and joined-up working across teams, shifts and services.

Care was generally consistent across shifts and units. Staff described structured handover processes supported by clear documentation, which ensured key information about people’s needs, risks and daily support requirements was shared effectively. This supported continuity of care and helped maintain consistency in how support was delivered.

Daily records and communication systems were used to support ongoing information sharing between staff teams, ensuring that changes in people’s needs were recorded and acted upon.

Families and external professionals were kept informed where there were changes in people’s needs or care arrangements, supporting coordinated care planning and communication.

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

The service had systems in place to ensure information was available in accessible formats and tailored to meet individual communication needs.

Information about the service was provided through structured service user guides, including versions translated into languages appropriate for people whose first language was not English. Easy read materials were also available to support understanding for people who required simplified information.

We saw examples of accessible information within people’s bedrooms, including easy read documents and personalised materials designed to support communication and understanding of care arrangements. Communication plans were in place within care records and reflected individual needs, preferences and methods of communication.

Staff demonstrated awareness of people’s communication needs and described using personalised approaches to support understanding. This included the use of key words in different languages where appropriate to support day-to-day communication.

Families were kept involved in updates about people’s care. The service included relatives in monthly “resident of the day” meetings, which provided opportunities for involvement in care reviews and discussions about ongoing support needs.

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 service had systems in place to gather and respond to feedback from people and their relatives, supporting ongoing involvement in how care was delivered.

Feedback was obtained through a combination of resident meetings, structured surveys and informal engagement. Pictorial surveys were used to support accessibility and enable people to express their views in a way that suited their communication needs.

We saw that feedback was discussed within resident meetings, which also provided an opportunity for people to raise concerns and make complaints. These meetings formed part of the wider “resident of the day” approach, supporting regular engagement with people and their relatives about their experiences of care.

The service demonstrated the use of a “You said, we did” approach, showing how feedback was reviewed and used to inform changes to care delivery and activities. This supported transparency and demonstrated responsiveness to people’s views.

Complaints systems were in place, with processes for logging, reviewing and responding to concerns. Staff described how concerns were escalated appropriately and addressed in line with policy, with outcomes recorded.

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

The environment was designed to support accessibility. The service was level throughout and located on a single floor, supporting ease of movement for people using wheelchairs or mobility aids. Accessible entrances and exits were in place, along with designated disabled parking spaces, supporting safe and equitable access to the service environment.

Reasonable adjustments were made to support individual needs. People had access to a range of activities, with adaptations made to ensure inclusion regardless of ability. We saw examples where activities were designed to support participation for people with different levels of need. For instance, individuals who enjoyed crocheting were supported to continue this interest, including participation in group-based sessions facilitated in collaboration with external support, enabling social engagement and skill maintenance.

Care and support plans reflected individual needs and supported access to healthcare and daily activities. Staff described ensuring that people with higher dependency needs or communication difficulties were supported to access the same opportunities as others through appropriate adjustments and support.

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.

The service had systems in place to help ensure people received consistent care and support regardless of their level of dependency, communication needs or whether they spent time in communal areas or their own rooms.

People who required support in their bedrooms were regularly checked and received appropriate assistance in line with their care plans. Staff described routine monitoring of people who were nursed in bed, with scheduled checks and responsive support provided when needs changed.

Observation during the inspection indicated that people across different units received similar levels of care and engagement. Staff presence was visible across the service, with support provided in both communal areas and individual rooms, helping to reduce the risk of people being overlooked.

A person told us: “The staff make sure I am never bored. In a few moments I will be wheeled outside to paint the garden chair.” This reflected that people were supported to remain engaged and experience meaningful activity, including those receiving support in their rooms or with higher levels of dependency.

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.

Advance care plans were in place and used to document people’s preferences for future care and treatment, including escalation decisions and anticipatory planning. These plans supported staff to understand how people wished to be supported should their condition change.

End-of-life care preferences were discussed where appropriate, including sensitive conversations around future wishes and personal preferences. Staff described engaging with people and their families to ensure these discussions were handled in a person-centred and respectful manner.

Documentation regarding resuscitation was in place where required, supporting clear decision-making regarding resuscitation status and ensuring that decisions were accessible to staff involved in care delivery.

Families were appropriately involved in discussions about future care planning, ensuring that their views and the views of the person were considered as part of decision-making processes.