Maidment 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 service 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 service 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. People told us the care they received was person centred, and where appropriate, their relatives agreed. A person said, “I usually have regular staff that I know and they know me.” Staff had access to detailed, person-centred care plans which enabled them to provide support in ways that were specific and meaningful to each individual. Staff knew people very well and understood not only what support people needed, but how they preferred that support to be provided. A staff member said, “Person centred care is built around the individual and tailored made to their individual needs and likes. This goes with knowing everyone is different and lives differently and we need to support an individual to be unique.” People were actively involved in planning their care and support. Where appropriate, relatives and others important to them were also involved in care planning discussions. Relatives confirmed they were involved, and care plans were reviewed whenever people's needs or circumstances changed. This ensured care continued to reflect people's views, choices and changing needs.

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. People told us they could access the care and support they required. This included seeing their doctor or nurse. Relatives were confident in the staff to summon medical support if needed. Staff confirmed they regularly liaised with health and social care professionals such as GPs, community nurses, and occupational therapists to ensure people received appropriate support. Records showed involvement from a range of health and social care professionals. Information was shared effectively through handovers, meetings, and messaging systems. A health and social care professional said, “The staff adhere to the plans I put in place impeccably and understand the implications of not following the plans. They are dedicated to improving people’s outcomes and it is fantastic to see.”

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Information about how a person communicates was detailed in care plans. This information was highlighted if a person had communication difficulties and shared with relevant health and social care professionals. We were assured this service met the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The AIS is a law to make sure that people who have a disability, impairment or sensory loss receive information they can easily read or understand. The service adapted to meet people’s individual communication needs. Communication was effective within the service, we received positive feedback about the way the service communicated with people, staff and external professionals.

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 care and told them what had changed as a result. People told us they felt involved in their care and support, either working with the service or their individual member of staff. The service regularly sought people's views through surveys, resident meetings, a residents' committee and monthly coffee mornings. Independent surveys also gathered feedback about people's experiences of wellbeing, care and housing. Feedback was reviewed and used to develop 'you said, we did' actions. Meeting minutes showed people were kept informed, could raise issues important to them and that actions were recorded. Managers attended informal coffee mornings, giving people further opportunities to have their voices heard. Relatives were involved through surveys, coffee mornings and care plan reviews where appropriate. Staff were also encouraged to share their views through regular team meetings, surveys and informal sessions with human resources.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People received care and support that was accessible and took account of their individual needs and circumstances. Staff received equality and diversity training and understood the importance of supporting people as individuals. Policies and procedures considered equity, accessibility and safety and were supported by staff training and ongoing competency monitoring. The provider considered people's individual needs and preferences when arranging and delivering their care to help ensure there were no unnecessary barriers to accessing 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. People and their relatives told us they were treated fairly, and their rights were respected. Staff had access to various ways of raising concerns about treatment which discriminates, they told us the provider would take them seriously. Staff training, guidance and observations meant staff were reminded of their responsibilities. Policies, procedures and working practices within the service were in accordance with relevant legislation to ensure people and staff received fair treatment.

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 were supported to plan for the future and have their individual wishes and preferences respected at the end of their lives. The provider described working closely with people, relatives and other professionals to provide personalised end of life care. We heard an example where staff went above and beyond to arrange a meaningful experience based on a person's lifelong interests and wishes, adapting the arrangements when the person's circumstances changed. The provider had developed a 'Peace Box' initiative, which provided personalised comfort items to help create a peaceful and comforting environment for people approaching the end of their lives. People could also access multi-faith chaplaincy support and staff provided companionship and support in accordance with people's wishes. The service recognised the impact of a person's death on other people living at the service. With appropriate agreement, people were given opportunities to remember and say goodbye to those they had formed relationships with.