Dauntsey 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 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 specific needs. People had been involved in planning the care they needed. Care records demonstrated staff took an individual approach to meeting people’s needs. Staff were aware of people’s interests and history, what was important to them and how they liked their care provided. We observed staff demonstrating this knowledge and working in a person-centred way throughout the inspection.

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. The provider worked with other services, to ensure people received continuity of care. Examples included social workers and health professionals. Details of this support was recorded in people’s care records. Feedback from health and social care professionals was positive about the way the service maintained continuity of care for people. Comments included, “[The registered manager] worked closely with me to be able to take on challenges and conflicts which were difficult at the time. The manager put the customer at the heart of what was required and was most supportive and caring.”

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

People and relatives told us they received all the information they needed from the provider, in formats which were accessible to them. People’s communication needs had been assessed with them, and a communication care plan had been developed. We observed staff using these communication systems during the inspection, including use of a whiteboard for a person with hearing loss and supporting another person to make decisions in a quieter area of the home so they were not distracted. The provider had systems to provide documents in a range of formats, bespoke to people’s needs.

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.

People and relatives told us they knew how to raise any concerns and were confident action would be taken to resolve their issue. Comments included, “I feel we are able to approach management if we have any concerns. My relative [also] feels able to voice any concerns.”

The provider gave people information about their complaints policy. Records demonstrated complaints had been investigated and responded to, setting out any actions the provider had taken as a result. The registered manager kept a record of all concerns that had been raised to ensure they had been followed up and action taken.

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

Assessments included the support people required to access the care they needed, including any specific equipment or adaptations. The assessments were regularly reviewed and updated as people’s needs changed. Accessibility of the building was considered as part of people’s needs assessment and on-going reviews. The building included some areas that were accessed by steep, narrow steps. Records demonstrated that people using these areas were regularly reviewed and offered alternative rooms if their needs changed. The registered manager reported they had plans to build a car park in part of the garden, which would increase accessibility, particularly for people using a wheelchair or walking frame.

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 registered manager was aware of the barriers people with disabilities may face and worked to overcome them. The registered manager had identified issues with patient transport and support for people to access hospital appointments. They made alternative arrangements where needed to ensure people could attend appointments. People were supported to access local community and leisure services when needed.

The provider had obtained information about people’s wishes for the future, but care plans did not always provide easy access to this information when needed.

Staff were aware of people’s wishes for the future, for example, whether people wanted to go to hospital for further treatment or whether they had a do not attempt resuscitation plan in place. This information was recorded in various parts of people’s care plans. However, the service did not have a specific end of life care plan for people, particularly for those receiving end of life care. The registered manager told us they would transfer the information they had into 1 document, to make it easier for staff to access and ensure information was kept up to date. Staff said they had completed end of life training and worked with the community nursing team when necessary. We saw cards from relatives with positive feedback about the care staff had provided at the end of people’s lives.