Cranbrook 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 as Good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 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.

Personalised care plans were in place that included people’s support needs and how they liked to be supported. Care plans included people’s backgrounds and detailed information on support required such as with personal care, continence and when out in the community. There was also a ‘One Glance’ care plan available that summarised people’s support needs if staff wanted quick access to information.

Staff told us they knew how people liked to be supported and gave us examples of people’s preferences. Staff told us that care plans were helpful, and it helped them in their roles. A staff member told us, “We always read the care plans; it is very helpful and accurate and helps us look after people.”

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 had a positive relationship with staff and had access to services. Staff told us that people had access to health services when needed. Staff completed daily notes when care was delivered to ensure people received continuity of care.

People had allocated key workers and meetings were held regularly with the keyworker to discuss people wellbeing and support.

There was a ‘About Carer’ section, which included people’s preference on which care staff member they would like to support them such as male or female. The management team told us the service ensured where possible for people to have the same care staff to form positive relationships and people received good care provisions and continuity of care.

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

The principles of Accessible Information Standards were being met ensuring people received information in accessible formats. Communication plans were in place that included information on how to communicate effectively with people and people’s preferred communication style. Staff told us that they had access to communication materials when required to communicate with people effectively and communication plans supported them.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

People and their relatives were able to share feedback about their care through reviews and surveys.

Quality monitoring systems were in place to obtain feedback from people such as through welfare checks and telephone monitoring.

There were systems to manage concerns and complaints. A complaint policy was in place that detailed the process of managing complaints. No complaints had been received. Staff were also able to tell us the process to manage complaints and concerns, which was escalated to management for review.

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

Support and care were available when people needed it. The management team reviewed care regularly to ensure people had access to care and support they needed. The management team were also on call if people needed emergency support.

Health action plans were in place to promote equity and ensure people had access to health services when they needed it.

Regular audits were carried out to ensure people were well cared for and safe.

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 equality characteristics such as their race and religion were recorded in their care plans. The cultural and spiritual needs of people were taken into account when providing a service. The management team told us people were free to practice their religion and care plans showed that people were supported in this area.

Staff had a good knowledge of people’s beliefs and cultural needs. Reviews were held regularly so management listened to people’s preferences and tailored their care and support in response to this and shared with staff.

Quality assurance systems were in place to ensure people received safe care and support. This included regular audits on care plans and risk assessments to ensure people received personalised support.

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.

The nominated individual and staff told us they discussed future aspirations regularly with people such as what they would like to do in the future, and this included how they wanted to be independent and how that could be achieved.

Planning for the future was discussed with people as part of key worker meetings such as wanting to access the community more and were included on their care plans.

People were not receiving end of life care during the assessment. The provider had policies in place to help guide staff on how to support people to express their preferences on end of life care if needed.