Minshull 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 79 (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 consistently placed people at the centre of all care and treatment decisions and demonstrated outstanding person‑centred practice. For example, managers and staff planned and delivered care in partnership with people and, where appropriate, their families and professional partners, and shaped support around what mattered most to each individual. Staff responded flexibly as people’s needs changed, which ensured care remained personalised, responsive and meaningful.

Staff supported people as unique individuals and reflected their preferences, routines, communication styles, sensory needs and emotional wellbeing in everyday practice. Staff took time to get to know people extremely well and used detailed, up‑to‑date information to tailor support before, during and between short‑break stays. They adapted how they welcomed people, offered choices, maintained routines, recognised distress and supported wellbeing and enjoyment. People did not have to fit into service routines; instead, staff adapted the service around them.

Managers and staff regularly reviewed how people were doing, listened to feedback from people and families, and used this information to adapt and improve support so it continued to meet people’s changing needs and preferences.

Staff actively involved people in decisions about their care using approaches that worked for them, including visual supports, non‑verbal communication and familiar cues. Families consistently said staff understood their relatives and adapted support flexibly as needs changed. One family member told us staff “Really know [relative] and adapt things every time they come,” while another said, “They don’t expect our relative to change – they change what they do to suit them.”

Staff demonstrated person‑centred care through practical actions, such as maintaining familiar routines and rooms, planning rotas so trusted staff supported people where this mattered, adapting environments with personal belongings and sensory items, and supporting people to take part in activities they enjoyed both within the service and in the community. Staff also adapted support immediately during periods of anxiety or distress, using individual calming strategies, reassurance and preferred activities they knew worked well for the person.

Professional partners also recognised the provider’s outstanding person‑centred approach. One professional described the service as “Exceptionally person centred, with staff who understand the whole person rather than just their care needs.” Another said care was “Thoughtful, flexible and genuinely individualised.”

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. For example, each person’s stay was carefully planned to ensure continuity, recognising people may experience gaps between visits and require reassurance, familiarity and consistency on return.

There was effective partnership working with people, families, carers, social workers, health professional partners and other services to ensure support was consistent and responsive. Information was shared promptly and accurately, enabling staff to deliver consistent care reflective of people’s current needs, routines and preferences.

Continuity was actively promoted through stable staffing, detailed handovers and reflective reviews between stays. Learning from each short break was embedded into future planning, meaning care became increasingly personalised and responsive over time.

The provider made available appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats tailored to people’s needs. For example, people, and where appropriate their families and carers, were provided with clear, accurate and timely information to help them understand and engage with the service. Information about the service, short breaks and what to expect was shared in advance and reviewed as needed, supporting safe and well‑planned stays.

Staff communicated in ways that reflect people’s individual communication needs, using methods and reassurance to support understanding. Families and carers reported staff were approachable and responsive, and they were kept informed about important matters during and between stays.

Information was shared appropriately with professional partners involved in people’s care to support continuity and safety. Managers maintained oversight of communication processes to ensure information remained up to date and accessible.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. For example, people and where appropriate their families and carers were listened to and involved appropriately in decisions about their care and support. Staff took time to understand people’s views, preferences and feedback, using approaches reflective of individual communication needs and levels of understanding.

People were encouraged to share how they felt about their stays, and families and carers were consulted where appropriate to ensure people’s voices were heard. Feedback was welcomed and used to make adjustments to support, routines and activities.

Staff were approachable and responsive, and people were supported to express choices day to day. Managers had oversight of these processes to ensure involvement was consistent and meaningful.

The provider made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. For example, people had fair and appropriate access to short breaks based on their individual needs. Referral and admission processes were clear, transparent and applied consistently, supporting timely access to the service.

Reasonable adjustments were made to support people with different communication styles, sensory needs, cultural backgrounds and levels of support, helping to reduce barriers to access. Information was gathered in advance to ensure each stay was suitable, safe and effective.

Staff and managers worked appropriately with families, carers and other agencies including local authority commissioning teams to manage access fairly and review needs over time. Managers maintained oversight of access arrangements to ensure decisions were fair and based on assessed need.

Staff and managers 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 to this. For example, people had fair and consistent experiences and outcomes, regardless of their level of need, communication style or length of stay. Support was planned around individual needs and preferences, helping to reduce variation in people’s experiences and promote positive outcomes for all.

Staff recognised people may experience and respond to short breaks differently and adapt their support accordingly. Adjustments were made to routines, activities and the environment to better promote inclusion and wellbeing, helping people participate in ways comfortable and right for them.

Outcomes were reviewed with people and, where appropriate, their families to make sure support continued to work well and was fair for everyone.

People were supported to plan for their future and prepare for important changes in their lives. For example, we saw examples where people had extended stays at Minshull House during periods of uncertainty or transition. The stays were used effectively to give families and professional partners the time needed to plan permanent homes for people in a safe, thoughtful and person‑centred way. People were supported to maintain routines, develop independence skills and remain connected to their community while future arrangements were being made.

Planning for the future was informed by regular reviews, feedback from people and families, and ongoing communication with professional partners. Stays were used purposefully to support people to settle, build confidence and prepare emotionally for longer‑term arrangements. Professional partners comments included, “Supports people thoughtfully through change, helping them move on at the right pace rather than pushing for quick decisions” and “Created stability and space to plan permanent placements safely, with better outcomes for the person.”