Dalemain 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 provider met people’s needs.

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.

The provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care. 

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.

People were not always offered personal care that met their individual needs or in line with their care plans. For example, one person’s care plan stated they preferred daily showers; however, in June 2025, they only received 2 showers.

Care was delivered in a task-focused manner rather than around people’s routines. For example, personal care was recorded at the same times for multiple people. Staff confirmed night staff sometimes woke people to provide care to accommodate day staff shifts.

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’s care records showed care was coordinated with other professionals, and decisions were shared across teams. This included collaboration with GP, Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) and mental health teams. Records from visiting professionals showed regular district nurse visits, included actions taken; however, care plans were not always updated to reflect this communication.

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

Dates and weather forecast were displayed in pictorial format to support understanding for some people. Communication care plans were in place for people, highlighting individual needs. For example, one person’s care plan documented how they required their phone to be on loudspeaker during conversations to assist with communication.

Most family members told us they were kept up to date with their relative’s needs, although some felt communication between the home and themselves could be improved.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

For example, there had been no relative or resident meetings, and no surveys had been completed. There was evidence of one-to-one conversations with some family members and family members told us they would feel able to raise any concerns with the management team.

A complaints policy was in place; however, complaints were not always effectively investigated.

The provider made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People’s care notes evidenced where they had received support from external professionals. For example, the service engaged with a mental health professional to support and improve a person’s specific healthcare need. Staff reported this had led to positive improvements for the individual.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

For example, care was not always personalised or delivered in line with people’s preferences and care plans, therefore we were not assured people were empowered to achieve individual goals. Feedback was not consistently obtained from people and their families to support the development of the service.

Family members did not raise any concerns around discrimination or inequality within the service.

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.

For example, end of life and advanced care plans were in place for people who required them. These plans contained specific, person centred information reflecting people’s preferences and wishes, and demonstrated involvement from both the person and their families.

Staff had completed training in end of life and palliative care.