Autumn House Residential Home

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was no longer in breach of the legal regulation in relation to person centred care, as sufficient improvements had been made and remaining shortfalls were being embedded into the service.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People were not always at the centre of their care and treatment choices, and the service did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans did not contain sufficient detail to enable staff to provide person led care. This increased the risk of people not receiving care that met their individual needs and preferences. For example, people’s care plans failed to include important information of their life experiences, work history, family life, hobbies and interests or their culture and beliefs.

Staff knew people well, however if staff who knew people well were absent, it had a negative impact on people. This was because they were supported by staff who did not know their care and support needs.

The home manager was in the process of developing working relationships with people and engaging them, their families and relevant professionals in their care. This needed to be fully embedded into the service and improvements sustained.

There were some shortfalls in people having access to some health and care organisations available in their local community. Care was not always joined up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

People did not have access to local community facilities and groups, such as local support groups and their local places of worship.

The home manager was contacting local organisations to build connections with them and organising events to enable the service to become integrated into the local community.

The provider did not supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People’s care plans were not written in plain English and were not available in different formats, limiting people’s ability to understand their care plan.

Information was not routinely available in different formats, this meant that people were not able to access information or enabled to make informed decisions. For example, menus, care plans, risk assessments, medical information were only available in written format.

The home manager was aware of this prior to our assessment; they were in the process of developing resources to enable people to access information in various formats.

Staff spoke to people clearly and calmly; they offered choices verbally. This helped some people to make day to day decisions, such as what they wished to wear, eat and drink.

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.

People did not always feel they could speak up and that their voice would be heard.

The provider’s policy was not robust; people had not been given the opportunity to give their views. The home manager was aware of this and at the time of the assessment was in the process of engaging with people and their families to gain their feedback.

People and their families told us, they felt able to raise concerns and make complaints. A person told us “I would speak to [home manager], and they would make everything okay”.

The home manager was in the process of arranging meetings with people and their families at the time of the assessment.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People’s access to the local community was limited., This meant they were not always able to access community facilities such as local groups, churches and places of interest. This increased the risk of people feeling isolated and could impact their wellbeing.

The home manager was aware of this at the time of the assessment and was gathering information of the local area and involving people to establish meaningful community engagement.

Staff were responsive to people’s need and recognised when they needed health or social care support.

People’s protected characteristics were not always identified within people’s care plans, and this placed people at risk of discrimination and their needs not being met. Staff had recently received equity and human rights training, and their knowledge had improved since the last assessment. Further training was required to ensure staff had the knowledge and skills to prevent discrimination.

The home manager was aware of this and was in the process of arranging further training for staff. The home manager was dedicated to improving outcomes for people, for example, the home manager, led by example and was coaching staff, correcting discriminatory practice and celebrating improvements and embedding an inclusive culture into 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.

At the time of the assessment, no one using the service was receiving end of life care, but some people were receiving palliative care. The home manager was working with people, their families and health care professionals to ensure people’s needs could be met and they would receive appropriate support at the end of their lives.