The Old Rectory

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 inspection we rated this key question Requires Improvement. At this inspection the rating has changed to 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 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.

At our last inspection we identified shortfalls in staffing levels which meant people were not consistently supported in line with their personalised support hours. At this inspection we found this had improved and people were receiving person-centred care.

Relatives told us they were happy with the service they received, which met people’s specific needs. People and their relatives had been involved in planning the support they needed. In addition to regular activities, people were supported to attend specific important events like family weddings. Comments from relatives included, “The staff are brilliant, they go over and above” and “[Relative] has his one-to-one hours. He enjoys shopping, a daily walk, going to the farm and swimming.” Comments from visiting professionals included, “Care is person-centred, with personalised activity planners tailored to individual needs and preferences.”

Staff said the service was focused on meeting people’s specific needs, to help them develop skills and independence. This approach was reflected in the records of support provided.

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’s care records demonstrated the provider worked in partnership with other care providers and health services, to ensure people received continuity of care. Comments from professionals included, “The keyworker system ensures flexibility and continuity in care delivery.”

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

Relatives told us people received all the information they needed from the provider. People’s communication needs had been assessed, and a communication support plan had been developed. This included information on how to make a complaint, contact details for anyone who doesn’t feel safe and support plans. We observed staff using these communication systems during the inspection, including use of a whiteboard and Makaton sign language. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s communication needs, for example, the specific sign language that people used and what people’s specific patterns of speech meant.

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 had a complaints procedure, which was shared with people and relatives and made available in the service. The registered manager reviewed any concerns or complaints that had been raised as part of their monthly governance meetings, to ensure they had been followed up and action taken. Records demonstrated no formal complaints had been received in the last year, but the manager had regular contact with relatives to address any smaller concerns they had. Relatives told us the registered manager listened to them and took action to resolve any issues.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Assessments included the support people required to access the care they needed, including any specific equipment or adaptations. The assessments were regularly reviewed and updated as people’s needs changed.

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.

The registered manager was aware of the barriers people with learning disabilities and autistic people may face and worked with a range of agencies to support people to overcome these. The registered manager ensured people were being supported in the least restrictive way possible which still met their needs. Staff had worked with health and social care professionals to reduce restrictions for people, for example reducing medicines and physical interventions where possible. People were supported to access local community services and healthcare by staff when needed. Staff had completed equality and diversity training.

People were not always 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.

The service was not providing end-of-life care. The registered manager had information about arrangements family members had made for people, for example funeral plans. However, work to support people to identify their wishes for the future and plan out support they needed had not been completed. The registered manager was aware work was needed in this area and was looking to source specialist input to help staff support people with this.