Miles House - 4 Hentland Close

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.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care.

This service scored 61 (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 demonstrated an intention to consider the wishes of everyone involved in people’s care. However, the views of the person were not always prioritised. On occasions where others expressed preferences about a person’s healthcare, the provider did not consistently act in line with the wishes of the person receiving care. Although the provider aimed to satisfy all parties, we found an example where the actions taken did not reflect what the person themselves wanted. Some staff did not always provide care in line with people’s preferences. For example, 1 person’s records stated they preferred cold drinks in a plastic cup and meals served in a pasta bowl; However, we observed this was not always followed in practice.People’s bedrooms reflected their individuality, with personal items and meaningful belongings. Some care records contained detailed guidance and showed involvement from healthcare professionals. Staff we spoke with generally knew people and understood their needs and preferences. We also observed some staff using a person centred approach during activities for people experiencing anxiety or distress. However, this approach was not always consistent within the team, which meant people did not always receive personalised care in the way they preferred.
 

The provider mostly understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.
Feedback from professionals confirmed that staff engaged with them appropriately regarding people’s care, and staff sought support from external agencies when people’s needs changed to ensure they received the right level of input. People were supported by a consistent staff team, which helped maintain continuity and familiarity in people’s daily routines.
 

The provider had an Accessible Information Standard (AIS) policy; however, this required updating to ensure it reflected the most recent guidance and supported staff to regularly review people’s communication and information needs so they remained current. People surveys were available in pictorial format, showing the provider offered some accessible information.

The provider did not always make sure people were listened to or meaningfully involved in decisions about their care. One person we spoke with did not feel all staff listened to them and a relative told us they felt communication was not always good. People had opportunities to provide feedback through surveys; however, the provider had not identified any actions or improvements as a result, which limited opportunities to learn from people’s experiences and drive service improvement.

The provider supported people to access support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff supported people to attend health appointments and followed up with external professionals when people’s needs changed, which helped ensure they received the right level of input. People were supported by a consistent staff team, which promoted continuity and helped maintain stable routines.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. Feedback from people and relatives was mixed. Some relatives told us they felt people’s needs were understood and met, whilst others did not share this view and said their family member did not always receive the right support. One person told us they did not feel all staff had the skills or training required to deliver aspects of their care. Care records were not always person centred or reflective of people’s individual needs, which meant staff did not always have clear guidance to tailor care appropriately. These shortfalls meant people did not always experience equitable support or outcomes, and the provider could not assure that individuals most at risk of inequality consistently received care that met their needs.

The provider did not always support people to plan for important life changes or make informed decisions about their future. Care records did not identify people’s goals or aspirations, and there was no evidence that staff explored people’s wishes in relation to maintaining or developing their independence or daily living skills. Plans did not reflect longer term progression or future ambitions. This meant people were not consistently supported to plan ahead in a meaningful or person-centred way, limiting opportunities for them to shape their future or work towards outcomes that mattered to them.