Marika 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 service met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question outstanding. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service worked to ensure 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.

Some care plans were person centred to ensure care was provided in accordance with people’s individual needs and preferences. For example, people could choose when they woke up, what time they went to bed and what they wanted to wear.

However, people were not always offered meaningful activities or supported to eat healthy, and these needs had not been comprehensively assessed and planned for. During the inspection the registered manager started taking action to address these shortfalls.

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

Relatives confirmed people were supported to attend routine and emergency appointments with a variety of healthcare professionals.

Staff had completed training and understood the Equality Act.The registered manager told us, “All the people have a named GP and have been visiting the same dentists and opticians for many years.” This helped to remove some of the barriers to care.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People’s communication needs and preferences were clearly recorded in care plans.

People had communication aids in place, including electronic tablets and communication boards. Numerous easy read documents were available and had been used. This meant people could make their needs and wishes known to staff.

The provider had policies in place to ensure information could be shared in different formats, should this be required.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment, and support.

They involved people in decisions about their day-to-day care and told them what had changed as a result.

People living in the home were asked for their views in a variety of formats throughout the year, these included in daily conversations, meetings with their keyworkers, and through surveys. We reviewed people’s daily notes and noted people’s decisions were respected. During a meeting, one person had chosen how they wanted their bedroom to be redecorated. This meant people were involved and their views were sought and listened to.

The registered manager told us, where needed they engaged the use of advocacy services to ensure people were heard.

The service made sure people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff understood the needs of autistic people and people with a learning disability and worked hard to ensure typical barriers faced by people were removed or mitigated against.

Each person had a hospital passport in place. This could be shared with other professionals to reduce potential barriers to care within the health and social care system. We reviewed these documents and noted areas where additional information could be added to aid other professionals supporting the person. The provider was responsive and added this information immediately.

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

Staff treated people as individuals and made reasonable adjustments for anyone who needed them. Staff understood how the Equality Act applied to their role.

The registered manager gave us an example of where they had challenged a health professional to ensure a person had an appointment which was face to face as opposed to over the telephone, which was more suited to the person.

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.

People had robust end of life plans in place which included where people would want to be cared for at the end of their life and plans for their funerals which included religious preferences. People’s relatives had also been involved in this process.