Canterbury House

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.

Feedback from relatives and staff highlighted a lack of person-centred care at times, most attributed to staffing levels and the absence of a designated activities staff member. Whilst there were examples of care being tailored to individual needs, this was not always consistent. A staff member told us, “[Provider] does push the activities, but these are not always possible because personal care in the mornings does not always get completed until nearly mid-day and the afternoon, we try and support with [personal] care, tea trolleys and call bells so it is not always possible.” Both relatives and staff indicated that although there were ideas and willingness to provide activities, time pressures and staffing constraints sometimes limited what could be offered on a regular basis. We raised this with the provider who expressed a commitment to provide person centred care and took action to increase the staffing levels to provide enhanced staff deployment.

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.

Referrals were made in a timely and appropriate way, with professional guidance used to inform care planning. Staff worked collaboratively with a range of health and social care professionals, and records demonstrated ongoing involvement from district nurses and GPs, ensuring people received consistent, joined-up care that met their assessed needs and supported positive outcomes.

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

People had communication care plans in place, ensuring staff understood and used each person’s preferred methods of communication. The provider also made information available in formats tailored to individual needs and in line with the Accessible Information Standard (AIS), which requires organisations to ensure people with disabilities or sensory loss could access and understand information and receive the communicational support they needed. This helped ensure people received care that met both their communication needs and legal standards.

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 manager ensured complaints were appropriately recorded and logged, thoroughly investigated, and that outcome letters were issued to complainants once investigations were concluded, providing clear feedback and closure. This meant concerns were taken seriously, lessons could be learned to improve the service, and people felt listened to and reassured that appropriate action had been taken. One person’s relative told us, “The team leaders and managers will always respond in a very prompt and positive way to any concerns or niggles.” Another relative commented, “Yes, I have raised a concern, and this was dealt with in a timely manner and resolved.”

People were treated with fairness and without discrimination, and there was a shared expectation that care staff would support the delivery of activities. However, in practice, staff did not always have the time to consistently provide meaningful engagement. The provider took immediate action to address this.

Staff ensured people were supported to access additional healthcare services whenever required, helping to maintain their health and wellbeing. They recognised changes in people’s conditions and responded appropriately by seeking advice or referrals from relevant professionals, such as GPs, nurses, or specialist services. Staff also supported people to attend appointments and followed up on any guidance or treatment plans provided. This helped to ensure people received timely and appropriate care, reducing the risk of health deterioration and promoting positive outcomes.

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. Staff had completed training in Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion, which supported them to develop a good understanding of how to respect and value people’s individual backgrounds, identities, and preferences. This helped to ensure care was delivered in a way that promoted dignity, respect, and inclusivity for everyone using the service.

People, their relatives, and staff did not raise any concerns about discrimination, indicating that the service was providing a culture where individuals felt accepted and treated fairly. This contributed to a positive and supportive environment, where people felt safe, respected, and able to be themselves.

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 supported in a sensitive and meaningful way to discuss and share their wishes for end‑of‑life care. Where individuals expressed preferences, these were clearly recorded within personalised care plans so that staff had a clear understanding of what was important to them. This helped to ensure that people’s choices were respected and upheld, promoting dignity, comfort at the end of life, while also providing reassurance to both people and their families that care would be delivered in line with their wishes.