Dimensions Somerset Spring View

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 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.

People received high-quality person-centred care which reflected their needs and preferences. The staff team worked closely with people, with their family members and other agencies involved in their care to understand what mattered to them and how to achieve their goals. One relative said, “Yes, they do [involve me]. I’m a regular; I go at least once a week [to the home] for the whole afternoon.”

Care plans included what was important to people and how they preferred to be supported. One person told us how important their church was to them. They went to church every week. They were also supported to have lunch with a long-time friend every week at a pub of their choice.

The organisation had an equality and diversity and inclusion manager who supported the service to ensure people’s diverse needs were identified and met.

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 received consistent support from staff who understood their specific needs. Staff had additional training when required in relation to people’s individual health and support needs.

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

Each person’s communication preferences were clearly described in their support plan. The provider had ensured ‘easy read’ documents were available for people. These covered topics such as healthcare, abuse, medication, finances and complaints. For people who needed extra support, these documents were used as a ‘cuing tool’ whilst staff verbally explained these policies to people.

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 were able to provide feedback and share their views. Some people used words to communicate; others did not. Staff were confident in communicating with people using each person’s preferred method, so everyone had ‘a voice’. Key teams also worked closely with people to ensure they were listened to and responded to.

Relatives knew how to raise concerns or make a complaint. One relative said, “No complaints, but I would go to [the registered manager] if I did.” Another family member told us, “I don’t like complaining too much. I have told the manager [about minor care issues], but I don’t think it always filters through to the staff.”

Complaints were taken seriously and investigated in line with the provider’s policy. For example, a complaint regarding unprofessional conduct from 1 member of staff towards another staff member had been investigated and upheld. Appropriate action was taken to ensure this did not happen again.

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

People were provided with support to arrange and attend healthcare appointments with other professionals involved in their care. Staff supported people to attend appointments and to follow any advice given by other professionals. One relative said, “The doctors surgery is just across the road, so if in doubt about anything, they [staff] are straight on the phone to them.

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 had been supported to achieve good outcomes and have positive experiences. The staff team recognised and responded to potential inequalities people may experience. Staff worked hard to try to overcome some obstacles people experienced. For example, it was difficult to source a wheelchair accessible taxi and other forms of community transport was often already fully booked. Staff had therefore supported people to purchase their own vehicle to help overcome these barriers.

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.

Staff recognised the need to be led by people's wishes when considering their longer-term care needs, including end of life care. Sensitive conversations were held, where appropriate, with people and their relatives. Two people’s care plans confirmed they had funeral plans in place. Not everyone had felt these discussions were appropriate for them at this time and this had been respected.