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 in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care.

This service scored 43 (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 did not make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The provider failed to make significant improvements since our previous inspection.

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. Some staff were not aware of the things that mattered to people. This increased the risk of people’s wellbeing needs not being met.

Some staff knew people well, but recently recruited staff and agency staff did not know people’s needs and preferences, this had a negative impact on people as some staff were unable to engage with them in meaningful ways or know their care and support needs.

The recently recruited home manager started to engage with people and those important to them during our inspection. This work needed to be completed and fully embedded into the service and improvements sustained.

There were still 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. This meant people’s cultural, spiritual and wellbeing needs not being met.

The recently recruited 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 newly recruited home manager was responsive to our concerns, they had started to make plans to provide people with information in a variety of formats and provide additional training to the staff team.

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 newly recruited home manager was aware of this and at the time of theassessment was in the process of engaging with people and their families to gain their feedback.

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.

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, the effectiveness of this training was being monitored and time was needed to fully embed this into the service.

People were not always 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.

There was not anyone living at the service receiving end of life care, some people were receiving palliative care.

People’s care plans lacked information of how they wished to be supported at the end of their lives, increasing the risk of people not receiving adequate support that met their needs and expectations.