Royal Court

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.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The home met people’s communication and sensory needs. One person, where English was not their first language, had benefited from the home using google translate via earphones to talk with them. This appeared to be having a positive impact on the person’s wellbeing.

Care was reviewed and altered to accommodate changes in health and abilities. People and their families were involved in care plan reviews. We identified some gaps in people/families’ involvement over the past few months. The service provided assurances staff were contacting relatives to arrange appointments.

Ensuite toilets and communal wet rooms were fully equipped with mobility aids. Doors were wide enough to enable access for peoples’ wheelchairs and hoists.

People and their relatives told us they were well cared for and supported people as individuals. A relative told us, “[name] is always doing something. It’s shown as pride in peoples’ faces. The feedback photos; Mum tries everything, I never go home worrying about a thing. On the social side they have drummers, singers and coffee mornings. They celebrated VE day and Easter, Mum is not stuck in a chair.” Another relative told us “[Name] brings up the daily sparkle and reads it to Mum every day so don’t feel she is isolated.”

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

The service met the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard by identifying, recording, flagging, sharing and meeting the information and communication needs of people with a disability or sensory loss. The service provided information and advice that was accurate and up to date. Where English was not a person’s first language the person had been provided with simultaneous translation via technology which was used by their assigned carers.

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 service had different ways that people could feedback about their experience. For example, there were resident meetingsand a ‘you said we did board’ where the service demonstrated how they had listened to feedback from people and their relatives.

One person told us, “We’ve been through all [name] past life and care needs. I feel they do know [name] well.” Another said, “Not ever needed to complain about things, staff make sure I am well looked after.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The service primarily supported people living with dementia and the way the home was decorated and laid out supported the provider’s commitment to making it home for the people who lived there so all could enjoy.

The service had LED lighting throughout the home, this helped to reduce shadows, important for people living with a dementia. Corridors were free of trip hazards enabling people living with sight impairment, to access corridors safely. Clear pictorial and written signage identified shared bathrooms. Photos of individuals and art works enabled people living with a variety of neurological impairments to locate their room. Handrails were clearly differentiated from walls, enabling people who need extra physical support to locate them.

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 had good outcomes and experiences of the service regardless of their needs, backgrounds or protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. We observed this in practice during the assessment.

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.

People had RESPECT and DNACPR forms where appropriate reflecting people’s and their family views. Care plans reflected people needs and their relatives had been involved in planning for their future.