19 Leicester Villas

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. This is the first assessment of the service under the current provider. This key question has been rated 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 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 plans were personalised and written from people’s perspectives, describing their needs, routines, preferences and how they wanted to be supported. Staff described using people’s interests and individual communication methods to offer meaningful activity choices. This helped people influence their daily support in ways that suited them. Relatives felt staff understood people well. One described staff as “very engaging, proactive people” and explained how they recognised their family member’s enjoyment through laughter, smiling and participation. This helped staff understand what the person enjoyed and tailor their support accordingly.

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. Staff remained at the service following the change of provider, helping maintain familiar relationships and knowledge of people’s support needs. Relatives said they were kept informed about the changes, given reassurance and continued to see familiar staff. One relative said, “I’ve known a lot of staff there a long time.” Relatives also described having easy telephone and email contact with staff. Following the provider transfer, families were invited to a meeting and given contact details. This helped maintain communication and continuity between people, their families and the service.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Accessible information was available about important areas, including safeguarding and how to make a complaint. Easy-read information explained safeguarding concerns and how people could seek support. Care plans described people’s individual communication needs and how information should be presented. For example, one person’s plan guided staff to use simple language and give them time to process information and respond. This helped staff provide information in ways suited to people’s individual communication needs.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. There were limited arrangements for routinely seeking feedback directly from people using communication methods suited to their individual needs. The registered manager explained that people's capacity had previously been considered when deciding how feedback was sought. This meant people did not always have suitable opportunities to share their experiences and influence how the service developed. Relatives felt comfortable contacting staff and raising concerns but were not always clear about the formal process for giving feedback. One relative said, “If I wanted to give feedback, I would tell one of the staff but I am not sure the full process.” This meant relatives could provide informal feedback but did not always know how this would be formally recorded and considered. The registered manager told us the provider’s head office also collected feedback from relatives, but they had not routinely received the results. This limited opportunities to identify themes, consider areas for improvement and tell relatives what had changed in response to their feedback.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff supported people to access healthcare in ways that reflected their communication and support needs. A healthcare professional confirmed staff supported reasonable adjustments to appointments and were “willing to accompany patients here when needed”. This helped people access healthcare with support from staff who knew their needs. Records also showed staff supported one person to become familiar with blood pressure equipment when they found checks difficult. Staff helped the person become familiar with the equipment by showing how it worked and giving them time to become comfortable with it. The person’s choice was respected if they did not want the check completed.

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. Care plans recognised individual needs that could affect people’s experience of care. For example, one person’s communication guidance identified sensitivity to noise and advised staff to reduce noise and use a calm approach. This helped staff adapt their support and environment to the person’s sensory needs, so they could feel comfortable and engage with their support.

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 showed people had been given opportunities to discuss their wishes for the future, including their preferences for care at the end of their lives where relevant. Where people expressed preferences, these were recorded to help staff understand and respect their wishes.