The Royd

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.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People’s care was planned around their individual needs and preferences. Each person had a personalised support plan, and relatives told us they were kept informed about any changes. Staff demonstrated good knowledge of people’s needs and responded promptly when support was required. One person said, “If something changes in my life, staff provide the support I need.” People felt empowered to make decisions about their care. One person told us, “Staff understand my personal needs and always provide the right kind of support.” Appropriate adjustments were made for those with reduced mobility, such as allocating downstairs bedrooms. A relative told us, “[The person] seems looked after and all aspects are considered – I am pleased with the service.” Residents’ meetings showed that menus were discussed, and people’s preferences were considered. For example, meeting notes from September included a list of meals residents wanted to try, although the menu displayed in the kitchen was dated April. This suggests conversations about food choices were taking place, but updates were not always reflected promptly.

Delivery of care did not always align with what was recorded in people’s support plans. Daily logs sometimes included personal care tasks that were not reflected in the care planning documents. Inconsistency could limit the ability to monitor whether care was delivered as planned.

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.

Support plans reflected involvement from other services, such as mental health teams and the Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) team. Managers ensured contact details for relevant professionals were accessible to staff. Continuity of care was supported by a stable staff team, with many staff having worked at the service for several years. Rotas were structured to maintain regular working patterns, which reduced the likelihood of unfamiliar staff and promoted consistent care. Staff were proactive in identifying gaps in care and escalated concerns when additional support was needed. The service had strong links with the local GP surgery, which enabled open communication and timely access to healthcare. Staff told us they could call on the mental health team for urgent support, which helped prevent hospital admissions. Staff had completed mental health recovery training however not all staff had completed training specific to the needs of people they supported, such as dementia training.

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

The service met the Accessible Information Standard by identifying and meeting people’s communication needs. Preferred communication methods and accessible formats were recorded in support plans, helping staff communicate effectively. Staff described how they supported individuals with specific needs; for example, one person who was partially sighted was helped with reading and paperwork. A staff member told us, “We take the time to share information because they can’t see well, and this helps them.”

Information provided to people was accurate and regularly updated through reviews, daily notes and key worker sessions. Feedback forms were in large print with tick boxes and pictures to support accessibility. Staff had completed training on data security and confidentiality. Managers confirmed additional accessible formats could be arranged if needed.

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.

People and relatives told us they felt confident raising concerns and trusted managers to respond appropriately. One relative said, “I’m very happy with the service. If I had concerns, I would raise them. Everything is fine.” Another relative told us, “They take my concerns seriously. It’s managed well.” Policies were in place for complaints and surveys were used to gather views from people living at the service. People confirmed they had opportunities to provide feedback through questionnaires and residents’ meetings. One person said, “We have resident meetings every couple of months to give feedback.” Meeting minutes showed suggestions were made, such as introducing movie nights and board games. Outcomes were recorded, such as “A selection of games will be put out daily,” however we did not see evidence of these activities taking place during inspection or in daily logs. The manager told us activities do take place however they are not always documented if someone does not wish to take part, limiting transparency. Survey results from 2025 showed mostly positive responses, including strong agreement that people felt safe, healthy and well. Comments included, “The best part of my support is help with cooking, advice and support with appointments, and staff going with us.” Although, there were no negative responses, some responses were neutral, such as whether staff had the right skills and if people were able to decide who else should be involved in planning their care and support.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People received care and support in a way that respected their individual needs and protected characteristics. The service promoted inclusivity and provided tailored support to ensure people felt respected and heard. Staff described the culture as positive and diverse, with one manager saying, “We’re like a family here. If issues arise, we use reflective practice and talk things through.” Staff understood the importance of treating people equally and told us how they would provide equal opportunities and support. One example was given of where support was given to people to access sexual health services. Care plans included consideration of personal preferences and were reviewed regularly to ensure they remained relevant. People told us they could access support when needed. One person said, “The staff do support me and respond quickly if I need them.” A relative commented, “Staff are always very responsive.” The premises was accessible, with adaptations such as level access to the garden, rails and equipment in bedrooms to support mobility. People’s care plans detailed what equipment they needed to maintain their independence. Leaders and staff were alert to discrimination and inequality and complied with legal equality and human rights requirements.

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 experienced positive outcomes regardless of their needs, backgrounds or protected characteristics. We found no evidence of discrimination within the service, and people told us they felt respected and valued. One person said, “My opinion is valued.” Staff described the people they supported as an extended family, and observations confirmed a culture of inclusion. The service promoted fairness, dignity and autonomy. People were involved in decisions about their care through key worker sessions and reviews. Advocacy services were available when needed. Staff encouraged people to participate in planning their support, empowering them to make choices aligned with their preferences. Leaders and staff were alert to potential inequalities and took action to address barriers. For example, reasonable adjustments were made to meet individual needs such as ensuring those who needed more accessibility had bedrooms located downstairs. The service worked to reduce stigma and promote understanding in the wider community. Staff shared an example where they had previously engaged with local residents to explain behaviours that might cause concern to them. Helping foster acceptance and respect for people living at the service.

People were asked about future planning to ensure they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

At the time of inspection, no one using the service required end-of-life care. Separate paper records showed people had been asked about future planning and where individuals declined to discuss options, documents were marked as refused. The manager explained that if someone became terminally ill, the service would work with specialist teams to provide care at home wherever possible, allowing people to remain in familiar surroundings. They said, “As long as we can support them, we will… this is their home.” Whilst it was evidenced people were being asked, no completed advanced planning documentation was observed. Limiting the service’s ability to plan proactively and ensure long-term preferences were respected.