Falcon House Residential Home

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 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.
People and relatives told us the care they received met their needs.

Staff knew people well and demonstrated a good understanding of their individual choices, routines and what was important to them. People's bedrooms were personalised, and specialist equipment and adaptations were available where required to promote safety, mobility and independence. Staff supported people in meaningful and individualised ways that respected their wishes and enhanced their wellbeing. For example, a staff member described helping a person complete a tapestry project they could no longer finish independently due to deteriorating eyesight, enabling them to remain involved in an activity that was important to them and achieve a positive outcome. This demonstrated a caring and person-centred approach to supporting people's interests, independence and sense of achievement.
 

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.

People received support from a stable staff team who knew them well and understood their preferences and needs. Staff worked collaboratively with external professionals, including GPs, district nurses, social workers and pharmacists, to ensure people's health and wellbeing needs were met. Information was shared effectively between agencies to support coordinated care and positive outcomes. Feedback from professionals was positive, with one commenting, "The service appears to be well managed, with good communication, continuity of staff and appropriate follow through on clinical recommendations."
 

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

The service was committed to meeting the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard (AIS), ensuring people and their families could access information and communicate in ways that were meaningful and effective for them. Information was adapted where required and staff took account of people's communication needs, sensory impairments and preferred methods of receiving information.

People and their relatives told us they were kept informed about care and treatment and were involved in decisions affecting their lives. Staff communicated with people in a patient and supportive manner, giving them opportunities to ask questions, seek clarification and discuss options before making decisions about their care. This helped people to understand information, express their views and make informed choices.

Care plans contained information about people's communication preferences and any support required to help them access information. This supported a consistent approach among staff and helped ensure people received information in a way they could understand. As a result, people were enabled to remain involved in decisions about their care and maintain as much choice and control over their lives as possible.

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 provider sought feedback from people, relatives and staff through a range of methods, including resident and relative meetings, satisfaction surveys and informal day-to-day conversations. These arrangements provided people with different opportunities to share their experiences, make suggestions and raise issues they wanted the service to address. People and relatives felt able to express their views and described leaders as approachable and responsive to feedback.

The service also used an independent Impartial Feedback survey, which gathered feedback from residents, relatives and staff to provide an objective assessment of how the service was perceived by those who mattered most. The results helped leaders understand areas of strength and identify opportunities for improvement. The feedback also provided valuable assurance for prospective residents, families, partner organisations and commissioners by demonstrating how people experienced the quality of care and support provided.

The management team reviewed and considered feedback, and where improvements were identified, actions were taken to address them. This demonstrated a commitment to listening to people, learning from their experiences and continuously improving the service. As a result, people were supported to have a voice in how the service was delivered and developed.
 

Staff monitored people's wellbeing and recognised when additional support may be required to help them maintain their health, independence and quality of life. Where a need or potential barrier was identified, staff took appropriate action and worked with people to ensure they could access relevant services and support.

Staff understood the importance of recognising changes in people's circumstances and responding in a timely and personalised way. For example, a staff member described how they had identified that a person regularly spoke about the loss of their spouse and may benefit from additional emotional support. The staff member discussed the option of accessing bereavement support and offered to arrange for someone independent to speak with them privately about their grief. The person chose not to access this service and explained they were comfortable talking with staff about their feelings. Staff respected this decision while continuing to provide emotional support and opportunities for the person to talk when they wished.
 

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 sought to understand each person's background, culture, beliefs, preferences and life experiences to ensure care was personalised and inclusive. Care plans contained information about people's individual needs and staff were aware of factors that were important to them.

People did not report experiencing discrimination and told us they were treated with dignity, respect and kindness. Staff demonstrated an understanding of equality, diversity and inclusion and recognised the importance of respecting people's protected characteristics, cultural identities and personal choices. One staff member told us, "We respect each resident's culture, beliefs and preferences. For example, we respect their food choices, religious beliefs and personal routines. We make sure everyone is treated equally, with dignity and respect."
 

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.

The registered manager recognised the importance of ensuring people's wishes, values and preferences were clearly documented and understood by staff. They told us, "I think this is important, this I picked up as some of the areas in the care plan that needed work. I am working with staff to improve this area."

The records we reviewed were variable. Some care plans contained information about people's choices and preferences for the future, including aspects of end-of-life care, while others lacked sufficient detail or evidence that these discussions had taken place. The registered manager had identified this as an area requiring further development and was working with staff to improve the quality and consistency of care planning.