Thanet House

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 changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met through good organisation and delivery.

The provider was in breach of legal regulations relating to person centred care.

This service scored 57 (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 always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. Care plans were not dated so we could not be assured they were up to date and accurate and there was no evidence that people had taken part in a person-centred review of their care plan. We also found care plans contained insufficient information to ensure personal care needs would be understood by staff.

The provider was not doing all they could to ensure people had activities in line with their personal interests and preferences. Some people using the service were at high risk of social isolation and the provider was not doing all they could to help them overcome this. There were weekly activities charts in place, but they did not represent the reality of what people were doing with their time. One person’s activity chart indicated they had numerous external activities planned each week, which they did not attend. We found no evidence that staff were supporting the person to improve this. Staff told us how they attempted to provide activities, however, the range of activities described by staff and people did not assure us people were being offered age-appropriate opportunities for social interaction and community engagement. People were not satisfied they had enough meaningful activities. One person told us, “I am left in my room and not included in things. TV is not enough for me.”

Care records did not always show how people were using their 1-to-1 hours, so we were not assured people were getting all the 1-to-1 support they were funded for.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

The key working process also did not support continuity of care. People did not have a designated keyworker who could support them to identify and work towards goals. Keyworking meetings were also not conducted regularly to enable effective ongoing monitoring and discussion of goals and aspirations. Where people had said they wanted support to work towards goals and aspirations these were not always acted on.

The provider understood their responsibility to supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Care plans included information about people’s specific communication needs. People told us information was provided in a way they could understand. They also told us they had access to their care records and they were happy about how their information was being stored. At the time of the inspection no one required information in adapted formats.

Systems were in place for listening to and involving people, however, these were not always effective. We were not assured the provider’s process for responding to complaints was always followed. One person who had raised a compliant had not received the final outcome explaining all the measures that had been put in place to ensure the issues they had raised would not re-occur.

There were regular residents’ meetings and a satisfaction survey carried out to gather feedback; however, these were of limited effectiveness in driving improvements. A recent survey showed there were elements of people’s care that required improvement; however, the subsequent action plan did not clearly describe how the service would make the required improvements based on feedback.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People told us they were supported to overcome barriers associated with their disability to attend health appointments. Although staff supported people to attend healthcare services when needed, the provider did not always ensure equality in day-to-day experiences or quality of life. One person told us they needed mobility equipment to help them access the local community; however, we found no evidence that the person had been supported with this goal. This meant they were unable to access all community resources in a way they wanted, and the provider was not doing all they could to help them overcome this.

The provider did not always ensure they 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’s care, treatment and support was not always effectively organised and managed in a way that promoted equality and ensured people’s rights were protected.

The service was operating closed circuit television (CCTV) in communal areas such as main entrances, hallways, lounges, kitchens and dining rooms but they had not consulted the people currently using the service and gained their consent and had not carried out a data protection impact assessment to ensure people’s human rights were not being affected by the use of this.

Not all staff had received equality and diversity training to ensure they understood people had a right to be treated equally and fairly, and to receive care and support that met their specific needs.

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. The provider made sure people had opportunities to discuss their end‑of‑life wishes. When individuals chose to share their preferences, these were recorded in their care plan.