Hartford 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

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 54 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. The provider was aware of shortfalls in this area and was reviewing people’s care with them and their relatives as part of their service improvement plan. For example, personalised memory boxes were being introduced outside people’s rooms to help orientation around the home, and information about people’s life histories was being sought to help personalise people’s care.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The provider did not always supply information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. For example, the provider had complaints and safeguarding policies, and information about how to raise concerns was displayed in communal areas. However, people were not provided with their own copies, and this was not available in accessible formats. We raised this with the registered manager who told us they would address this. People had communication care plans, and we observed people being supported with these in practice. For example, staff using a whiteboard.

The provider held meetings with people and relatives to seek feedback, but did not always respond to feedback when received. For example, meeting minutes for a resident and relatives ‘dining committee’ on 21 January 2026 showed a person fed back that their food was often cold by the time it reached them. We continued to receive feedback from people about this during our inspection. In addition, apart from Tuesday’s which were ‘residents choice’, menus were set at provider level, which limited people’s ability to have meaningful input into menu choices.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the support they needed when they needed it. Staff did not always encourage people to maintain their mobility, take part in activities or socialise with others. For example, some relatives told us they felt their family members were not encouraged to access the activities unless they visited and supported them out of their rooms. This meant people who had higher support needs and less frequent visitors were at risk of having less access. The service ensured some people cared for in bed were still able to access activities in communal areas, but this was not consistent.

Staff and leaders had not always actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. For example, a person was unable to access communal areas due to accessibility issues with the environment and equipment. This demonstrated accessibility requirements had not been sufficiently considered. In response to this, the provider had started a ‘Obesity support strategy’, but this was not yet embedded.

People were not always 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. End of life care plans lacked detailed information about how people wanted to be supported at the end of their life. They did not always demonstrate they were discussed with people or their loved ones, or describe how they were involved. The provider was aware of shortfalls in this area and was reviewing care plans with people as part of their service improvement plan.