Farriess Court

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 71 (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.

Staff knew people well and used effective communication to enable people to make choices. People, relatives and staff told us they liked the family atmosphere in the home. The home had a relaxed atmosphere where people seemed comfortable and relaxed. One relative told us, “Staff always find the time to talk to [name].”

Care records were written in a person-centred way and used the first person as recommended by the local authority commissioning team.

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.

The registered manager had a good understanding of the service the home could safely provide and worked with the local hospital discharge team to make sure people’s needs could be met. Staff had positive working relationships with a range of professionals and were confident in reaching out when support or advice was needed. Recommendations made by professionals were recorded in peoples care plan and staff followed this guidance.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Information around the home was not always up to date or provided in a way for everyone to access. For example, menu information was available but displayed in only a written format. Some signage was seen on the walls to help people orientate themselves and find their way around the building to communal areas. The activity and event information on display was not kept up to date.

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.

The registered manager had developed and maintained a system to keep in touch with people’s relatives which suited them. For example, meetings were arranged, email sent, and calls made depending on people’s preferences. The provider did offer the opportunity for stakeholders to submit written feedback and sent out questionnaires and surveys, however, most people preferred to share their feedback verbally and were happy to speak directly with the registered manager. Staff were able to effectively communicate with people and gain feedback from them. The provider used feedback to make improvements to the service. For example, the provider developed and displayed a document showing what had been said and what had been done in response to this. This included changes to the menus and activity schedule reflecting people’s requests. Staff told us they felt comfortable to raise suggestions which were listened to and discussed. One member of staff told us, “Themanageroften asks us how we could improve theservice and the outcomes for the people we support.”

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

People received care which met their needs. A face-to-face assessment was completed and if the registered manager considered people’s needs could not be met the referral was declined. Staff knew people well and were able to facilitate access to care, support and treatment as people required.

People’s care records provided guidance for staff in making reasonable adjustments to ensure they could access the care and treatment they needed. For example, pain scales were used to ensure people who could not verbally communicate their pain levels were able to access pain relief as required.

Staff had received training in equality, diversity and human rights and understood their responsibilities to ensure people received an equitable service.

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 protected characteristics were considered in care planning. For example, where people’s support needs varied due to their health condition, guidance for staff was available to support people to achieve consistently good outcomes.

Relevant policies were in place to promote equality, diversity and human rights.

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.

People were involved in making decisions about how their care was to be provided and care plans included any specific person-centred details for future care. Care records included details of people’s choices regarding future events. For example, details of people’s preferences and wishes for when at the end of their lives.