Penniston Barn

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 questiongood. At thisassessmentthe rating has changed torequires improvement.This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 61 (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 supported to access the community and participate in activities they enjoyed. Community activities reflected people's interests and preferences.However, opportunities for meaningful engagement within the home were more limited and were not always consistent with people's identified interests, preferences and aspirations.

The provider worked with people and relevant health and social care professionals to help ensure continuity of care and support. Staff knew people well and understood their individual needs, preferences and routines. People were supported to access healthcare services, appointments and community activities, and relatives told us the service worked effectively with other professionals when required. There was evidence of multidisciplinary involvement in people's care and staff shared information with relevant agencies to support people's wellbeing and positive outcomes.

The provider did not always ensure information was available in formats that met people's individual communication needs. Although the service used Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS), there was limited evidence that other identified communication methods, such as Makaton, were consistently used where care plans indicated these were preferred. Some information had been adapted into PECS format; however, this often resulted in lengthy and complex picture sequences which may have been difficult for people to understand. Information had not always been presented in the simplest and most accessible way to support people's understanding and involvement in their care.

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. A relative said, “I haven’t seen a care plan in a long time, so don’t have any idea what’s in it”. Another said, “It would be nice to be more involved again, I used to see other relatives and chat with them. Don't feel very involved now. I fill out review forms quarterly but don’t get any feedback, relative's meetings don’t happen anymore, and don’t think they have any events where relatives are invited now.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care,supportand treatment they needed when they needed it.We saw evidence people were supportedto attend health appointmentsand treatment whenrequired, for example, the dentist.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care,supportand treatment in response to this.Care planning reflected individual needs and preferences anddemonstratedconsideration of what was important to people.A relative said, “[Relative] leads a full life; goes swimming, trampolining, goes to the library for arts and crafts sessions and recently went to Dorset for a day trip to the beach as part of a group outing.”

People were supported to identify goals and develop skills to increase their independence. End of life plans were in place for people; however, these were not always sufficiently detailed and did not consistently demonstrate people's wishes, values and preferences. Records were not always clear about the extent of people's involvement in developing these plans or where decisions had been informed by relatives or other representatives. This meant the provider could not always demonstrate that future planning was fully person-centred and reflected people's individual choices.