Barleycombe

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.

The service recognised the importance of knowing people well to deliver individualised care. Support plans were detailed, outlining how people wanted to be supported and how staff should meet their needs. Plans reflected physical, mental, emotional and social needs, including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Observations showed care was person-centred and aligned with people’s choices. One relative told us, “Staff are friendly, [Person] is always clean and well dressed, [person] gets good choices and good support from their keyworker.”

Staff understood the importance of placing people at the centre of decisions. One staff member said, “People we support are the centre of all the decisions that are made surrounding them. We [staff] involve them as much as they want to be involved. For example, some of the people we support are health and safety champions, this involves them going around the house with a staff member to look for any issues or concerns. Other people we support collect the post from the post box, some will answer the door with staff members to show visitors in.”

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.

Staff worked with a range of health and social care professionals to ensure people received consistent joined up care. Appropriate and timely referrals were made to health care professionals with involvement of families where appropriate. Systems and processes supported the appropriate sharing of information between stakeholders involved in people’s care. For example, a person with a long-standing phobia had previously required sedation for tests, which often caused prolonged discomfort. The team collaborated with healthcare professionals to develop an alternative approach, focusing on building rapport and using desensitisation techniques. Staff listened carefully to the individual’s concerns and created a personalised programme incorporating real equipment and agreed key words to gradually reduce anxiety. Continuity was maintained by assigning a consistent staff member, who even attended outside their usual hours to build trust. As a result, the individual successfully completed the test without sedation or restraint, using only numbing cream for comfort. They reported feeling safe, respected, and in control, which improved their confidence and ability to access future health checks.

This outcome demonstrated the service’s commitment to person-centred care, teamwork and innovation, while protecting the individual’s rights and dignity.

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

People were supported by staff who understood their communication needs. Each person’s support plan included a communication plan detailing the person’s abilities and providing guidance for staff on how best to engage with them. Across the service, we saw a range of methods in use, including Makaton ‘word of the week’, visual prompts, social story boards and pictorial aids.

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.

Family forums were held to encourage feedback, and Lifeways sent an annual survey to gather views. Recent feedback included comments such as, “All [persons] support workers are marvellous”, “When [person] feels unwell, they feel protected” and “It is well organised, plenty to do, happy friendly staff, [person] is happy there.”

Relatives we spoke with told us, “I don’t have any concerns, I have never made a complaint but would know how to” and “I have faith in the manager, I have never had any problems.”

The registered manager said, “I would signpost people/relatives to the complaints procedure if wanting to make a more formal complaint,” and explained they speak to some family members regularly by telephone to ensure communication is transparent.

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

The leadership team and staff understood the needs of people with a learning disability and autistic people, working hard to remove or reduce typical barriers. People and relatives told us they were treated fairly and their rights respected. Staff had clear ways to raise concerns about discriminatory treatment, and regular training, guidance and spot checks reinforced their responsibilities. People told us they were very happy with the care they received and enjoyed living at Barleycombe.

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’s support plans detailed how they communicated and how best to support them. Staff understood individual needs and potential barriers to accessing external services, enabling professionals to deliver care in a more accessible and person-centred way. Staff worked with people to overcome barriers and achieve their goals, as noted in the ‘responsive’ section of this report. Support planning was centred on the person, and records reflected this approach. Appropriate adjustments, adaptations and equipment were in place to meet care needs.

This demonstrated a strong commitment to inclusive, personalised care and effective collaboration with external professionals.

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.

Due to the age group of people supported, discussions about end-of-life care and wishes were not always welcomed by individuals or their families. Staff approached these conversations sensitively and were able to provide easy-read information to support understanding if required. Where possible, plans were discussed with families, and some funeral arrangements were already in place. For example, one person had a funeral plan and intends to leave money to charity, while another family was currently exploring options.

The registered manager explained they reviewed changing needs and revisited these discussions regularly to ensure people’s preferences were respected and care remained person-centred.