Archived: Barnes Court 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 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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans did not always have complete and accurate information to aid staff to support people safely. One person’s emotional care plan reported they needed support with all aspects of their emotional needs, but it did not outline how staff were to achieve this. Another person’s communication care plan referred to the person having special requirements to meet the accessible information standards. However, it did not outline what these special requirements were. The provider had identified these issues via their quality assurance systems and had an action plan in place, but we saw this had not always been effective and some matters were outstanding. The management team immediately completed outstanding actions.

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 service collaborated with commissioners to maintain continuity of care. Staff worked alongside a variety of health and social care professionals to ensure people received consistent, integrated support. Referrals to healthcare professionals were made promptly and appropriately.

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

The provider had accessible information and communication policy in place. This outlined how the service was to meet the appropriate standard.The manager told us people’s communication preference are gathered during assessments and regularly reviews, and their preference may change. The service offered a range of communications in accessible formats.

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 provider viewed feedback, concerns, and complaints as valuable opportunities to enhance the service and improve the quality of care delivered. People, their relatives, and staff were actively encouraged to share their views. Regular surveys were carried out, and feedback from individuals and staff formed an integral part of ongoing governance checks. The provider maintained openness and transparency regarding complaints received and used these insights to drive continuous improvement.

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

Facilities within the home were designed to meet people’s mobility, communication, and sensory needs, ensuring fair access and reducing inequalities. The service supported people to access healthcare services to receive care, treatment, and support in ways that suited their preferences.

The provider adhered legal requirements on equality and human rights by avoiding discrimination, considering the needs of people with different protected characteristics, and making reasonable adjustments where necessary.

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 human rights were protected. The provider had procedures and processes to support with equality and diversity.

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.

End of life discussions took place and care plans were created to support staff. The manager told us people were reluctant to share their end-of-life wishes. They recognised preferences may change over time, so revisited the matter to ensure decisions reflected the person’s current values.