Chesham 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 75 (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 received person-centred care that reflected their individual needs, preferences, routines and goals. Support plans reviewed contained detailed information about people’s lifestyles, interests, health needs, mental health presentations, communication needs and preferred ways of receiving support. Daily care records demonstrated that planned support was delivered in practice and that staff adapted support to reflect people’s choices and day-to-day preferences. For example, a person was being supported to lose weight and improve their diabetes management reducing their need for medication.

People were supported to make choices about their daily lives, including what they ate, how they spent their time, whether they wanted support with personal care, and whether they wished to participate in activities or community access. Daily records showed people’s decisions were respected, including when people declined support, with staff continuing to monitor wellbeing and offer support where appropriate.

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. Care and support was delivered in a way that promoted continuity. Records reviewed demonstrated consideration of people’s changing needs and involvement of health and social care professionals where required. Staff were able to describe how information was shared within the service, including through handovers, team discussions and escalation to senior staff or external professionals when concerns were identified.

Many staff had worked at Chesham House for several years and demonstrated a good understanding of people’s individual needs, preferences and personal histories which supported consistency and continuity of care.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People were supported to understand information relevant to their care and support. Support plans contained guidance for staff about people’s communication needs and how best to support people to understand decisions, risks and choices. Staff described explaining information to people in a way that supported informed decision-making, including where people were making choices that could affect their health or wellbeing.

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 were listened to and involved in decisions about their care, support and daily lives. Evidence reviewed showed people were involved in meal planning, shopping, personal routines, social activities and community access. Daily records showed staff regularly offered choices and responded to people’s preferences, including people choosing meals, activities, social leave and how they wished to spend their time.

People were supported to access care, support, healthcare and community opportunities in a way that reflected their individual needs. Support plans identified barriers people may experience and described the support required to help people access services and activities safely. Daily care records showed people were supported to attend appointments, access the community, go shopping, spend time with family or partners, and take part in social activities.

Where people required additional support to access the community safely, this was identified within support planning and risk management documentation. Restrictions were considered through Mental Capacity Act and best interest processes where required, which helped ensure people’s access to opportunities was balanced with identified risks and legal safeguards.

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. People experienced care and support that reflected their individual needs, preferences and circumstances. Support plans included information about people’s communication needs, health conditions, personal preferences, relationships, routines and lifestyle choices. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s individual needs and described adapting support to promote choice, dignity and independence. Daily care records showed people had different routines and preferences, and staff supported these rather than applying a service-led approach.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future. Support plans included goals relating to maintaining or developing independence, health and wellbeing. Where appropriate, plans identified opportunities for people to develop daily living skills and increase involvement in areas such as shopping, meal preparation, personal care, community participation and managing aspects of their own health.