Compton View Residential Care Home

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.

Staff delivered care in a person-centred way which helped promote people’s dignity, independence and well-being. One person said, “I really want for nothing here”. A relativetold us, “They [staff] took all our worries away instantly. We know [person] is happy here, we can tell”.

Where people`s needs were complex, staff adapted their approach to provide support in ways that were meaningful to them. We observed staff using appropriate humour and light-hearted interactions to reassure people and promote positive engagement, which helped people feel comfortable and relaxed.

There were systems to make sure people, and their relatives, where appropriate, were involved in reviewing and updating their care plans.Feedback from people and their relatives confirmed staff knew people well and provided personalised and sensitive care and support. Comments included, “The staff are truly amazing. I can’t think of any improvements” and “The staff are always cheerful, that makes a difference”.

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.

People were supported by a regular and stable staff team who knew them well. This consistency helped ensure continuity in their care. Health professionals confirmed referrals were made promptly when required, and staff followed all advice and instructions provided. Feedback from professionals did not identify any concerns about the quality of care and support.

This consistent and responsive approach meant people received safer, more personalised care. Strong communication and follow‑through with health professionals helped maintain positive outcomes and confidence in the service from both individuals and external partners.

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

People’s communication needs were clearly identified, and recorded, to ensure staff had access to the appropriate information on how best to support them. For example, care records specified when individuals required spectacles or hearing aids to promote effective communication.

Notice boards displayed relevant and accessible information. This included details of the complaint’s procedure, menus, planned activities, and information about external services.

This ensured people, visitors, and staff had easy access to important information, promoting transparency, awareness of available support, and opportunities to engage in activities and raise concerns confidently.

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 reported they felt confident to share their views and raise any concerns where necessary. Comments included, “If I had a concern I would speak with [the registered manager]” and “We have a great relationship with the manager. [Person] is very easy to speak with”.

No formal complaints or concerns had been received from people using the service, their relatives, or professionals in the past 12 months. Where anonymous concerns were raised with CQC, the registered manager and operations manager responded promptly and provided thorough and detailed information.

The provider made sure people had clear and accessible ways to share feedback, express ideas, and raise any concerns or complaints about their care. Staff involved people in decisions about their day-to-day care and support. Regular meetings with residents and their relatives were held, where feedback was actively encouraged and used to inform and improve the quality of the service.

Regular engagement with residents and relatives enabled the service to respond proactively to any niggles or concerns, improve outcomes, and deliver care that is responsive to people’s needs.

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

Care plans took account of people’s individual needs, including any adjustments required to ensure equal access to care and support. For example, people had specific mobility and communication care plans that outlined how their needs should be met. Call bells were available in bedrooms, and where these were not appropriate, alternative systems such as sensors were used to promote safety and responsiveness.

Communal areas were accessible to people, including those who used wheelchairs. People had the equipment they needed, including an adapted/accessible bath.

The provider ensured people were able to access the care, support and treatment they required in a timely manner. Relevant external professionals were involved appropriately and advice and guidance sought where needed.

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 told us they received consistent, compassionate care regardless of their needs, background, or level of independence. Feedback showed people felt safe, respected, and valued. Comments included, “The staff are well trained I think and are very respectful” and “I would recommend this place. It is my home. The staff are good company”.

Staffing was adjusted to support people with higher physical needs and ensure safe and equitable care.

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’s wishes regarding their end of their life care were discussed with them when they felt able to talk about this sensitive subject. The service supported individuals to spend their final days in familiar surroundings when requested, surrounded by their family and a familiar care team.

Treatment Escalation Plans (TEP) recorded important decisions about how individuals wanted to be treated if their health deteriorated. This meant people’s preferences were known in advance, so they were not subjected to unwanted interventions or admission to hospital at the end of their life, unless this was their choice.