66 Park Lane

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 service 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 service strived to ensure 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’s care and support was person-centred.

Care was coordinated to maximise independence and planned to incorporate people’s choices and preferences. For example, people could choose when they woke up and what they wanted to wear and eat. A staff member told us, “It is a small service, so we develop relationships with each individual really well, we know who they are and what their care needs are.” Care plans were person centred.

The manager told us, “We have keyworker meetings. We have re-introduced house meetings. Some people prefer to spend time on their own. We make a point to chat to people when they are in the communal areas and monitor how they are. Staff know people well and understand chat to people within their limits.”

The service 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 care and support which was co-ordinated and worked in their best interests.

People’s care needs were assessed to ensure staff were available to provide support at time of their choosing. The manager told us, “We work with other professionals. Our GP surgery know the people well. We have the same nurses supporting people. One person’s mental health nurse has been supporting them for 25 years. We pride ourselves on not using agency staff, so staff support is always consistent.”

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People’s communication needs and preferences were clearly recorded in care plans.

The manager told us, “We have accessible information in relation to complaints, local information and a staff picture noticeboard.” The provider had robust policies in place to ensure information could be shared in different formats, should this be required.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment, and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

There was an accessible complaints process for people to follow. We reviewed the providers complaints log, however, there were no complaints from people.

People living in the home were asked for their views in a variety of formats throughout the year, these included in daily conversations, meetings with their keyworkers, and house meetings. During our inspection, the provider sent out surveys to people to gain their feedback.

The manager told us, where needed, they engaged the use of advocacy services to ensure people were heard.

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

Staff understood the needs of people with a mental health condition and worked hard to ensure that typical barriers faced by people were removed or mitigated against. Each person had an up-to-date hospital passport in place. This could be shared with other professionals and reduced potential barriers to care within the health and social care system.

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 treated people as individuals and made reasonable adjustments for anyone who needed them.

Staff understood how the Equality Act (2010) applied to their role. The manager told us, “We would raise complaints and advocate on behalf of people if we observed practice which fell short of what people are entitled to. Staff who support people when they are out, or when they attend appointments would also support with this.”

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.

Although end of life care was not required at this time, we found a persons end of life plans contained minimal details which did not include how the person would want to be supported at the end of their life. This meant the provider had not considered people’s future and end of life planning to ensure if their health were to deteriorate, staff would know how they wanted to be cared for at the end of their lives. The manager told us, “I have only been in post 6 months. I need to work on these plans. This is something I will explore with people and make sure this is documented.”