Frindsbury Hall 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.
 

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 ensured people were treated as individuals and supported in line with their preferences, needs and personal experiences.
Care records contained information about people’s lives, preferences and what was important to them.. For example, care plans included information about personal routines, relationships, food choices and emotional wellbeing. This demonstrated that people were understood beyond their clinical needs.
Staff demonstrated a strong understanding of people and were able to describe how they adapted their approach based on individual preferences, communication styles and behaviours. Observations confirmed that care was delivered in a way that reflected people’s choices and routines.
People and their relatives also described care as personalised. One person said, “They care for me the way I want,” reflecting that people experienced care that was tailored to them.
While the recording of care information varied in quality, this did not impact the personalised care people experienced, as staff demonstrated strong knowledge of individuals and adapted care accordingly.
 

People experienced continuity of care supported by a consistent and stable staff team.
Staff knew people well and were able to describe their needs, preferences and routines. This enabled care to be delivered in a coordinated and responsive way.
People and relatives confirmed that care was consistent and that staff understood individuals well. This continuity helped people feel comfortable, supported and confident in the care they received.
While systems to support information sharing were in place, continuity was particularly strengthened through staff familiarity and teamwork, which supported effective day-to-day coordination of care.
 

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.
People received information in a way that supported their involvement in care and decision-making. Staff communicated effectively with people, ensuring they understood what was happening and were able to express their views. Staff adapted their communication based on individual needs, including allowing time for people to respond and ensuring information was clearly explained. Relatives confirmed they were kept informed about changes in care and health and were able to maintain regular communication with the service. This supported people and families to feel informed and involved in care.
 

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 consistently told us they felt able to raise concerns and express their views. Comments such as “I would be comfortable talking to any of the staff” and relatives stating they would “Definitely raise any concerns to the manager” showed that people felt confident in speaking up.
There was evidence people were involved in choices about their care and daily routines. Staff described offering choices regularly, including around meals, activities and how people spent their time. For example, people confirmed that menus were shared in advance and they were able to choose alternatives if they did not want the planned option.
Relatives also told us they were generally kept informed about changes to care or health needs and were able to contribute to discussions about care. Family involvement was particularly evident where people had higher needs, with relatives visiting regularly and contributing to decision-making. This demonstrated people and relatives were actively involved in decisions about their care and support.
 

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.
People told us they could access care when required and that staff were available to support them. Comments such as “They are always nearby if I need them” demonstrated that people experienced timely access to support in most situations. Staff also supported people to access healthcare services when required, which ensured their needs were met in a timely way.

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 and relatives consistently described positive experiences of care. Feedback indicated that staff treated people with respect and supported them based on their individual needs rather than applying a one-size-fits-all approach.
People’s equality of experience was supported through respect for personal preferences and backgrounds. For example, arrangements were made for religious support where required, demonstrating sensitivity to individual beliefs.
This showed care was tailored to support equitable experiences for people with different needs.
 

The provider ensured people were supported to plan for future care needs and changes.
People were supported as their needs changed and staff adapted care in response.
Staff understood people’s needs and were able to describe how care was adjusted over time to reflect changes in health or wellbeing. People and relatives confirmed that staff responded appropriately as needs developed.
Where appropriate, discussions about care and preferences took place with people and their families, supporting ongoing involvement in decision-making.
While recording of long-term planning varied, people’s needs and preferences continued to be understood and responded to in practice. This supported care that remained responsive over time.