Langley View Residential Home Also known as Langley 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 changed to requires improvement: The provider did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices.  

When discussing the planned refurbishment, a staff member told us “We have not decided yet whether to have flooring or carpet.” The person whose room the staff member was referring to was not involved in the conversation or in any decisions about what type of flooring they preferred in their bedroom.

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 were cared for by a small team of care staff who they knew well. Each person had their own key worker who had oversight and responsibility for ensuring information was up to date and current. Staff told us how they enjoyed working with a small group of people. A staff member told us, “We can really get to know the people we support. We work in partnership with other services which means people get joined up care.”  The key workers had weekly meetings with the service users, and these meetings were used to discuss all aspects of peoples support plans and any personal goals and or aspirations.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People were given information relating to the service provision and what they could expect from the service. People’s individual communication needs were considered to make sure that they received information in their preferred formats. Staff were aware of people’s preferred communication methods and where required, specialist training was available.    

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, and their advocates felt their views were considered and respected. Professionals and key workers were invited to discuss individual current care and to review if the person would benefit from any additional or specialist support. There was a complaints procedure in place, and people were supported if they needed to raise any concerns. Verbal and written complaints were recorded, investigated, and responded to. Any learning from complaints was shared with all staff to help reduce any reoccurrence. At the time of our assessment there had not been any complaints made in recent months.   

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Care, support and treatment were delivered safely and equitably, with no discrimination based on protected characteristics. People's individual needs were recognised and respected, and the provider sought feedback to identify and address any barriers that might affect access to care. Staff understood and complied with the legal equity and human rights to ensure people received personalised inclusive care. Staff were recruited based on their ability to do the job and not on their ethnicity or personal beliefs.  

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 management and staff team described what equity in outcomes meant and how they supported people to access whatever services they needed to and be treated fairly as the same as a person who did not have specific needs. A staff member told us, “People should be supported and encouraged to reach their full potential, irrespective of any special needs and or disabilities.”     

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 registered manager told us they had collated as much information as possible as part of their live history which provided good oversight into their future wishes. Following the assessment the registered manager told us she would speak to people individually to make sure any special future wishes were known. Information such as religious beliefs were recorded in people’s care plans, in the event of them becoming unwell they would support individuals according to their wishes.   

This service scored 68 (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. For example, we observed staff responding to a person’s needs only after it had been brought to their attention.

When discussing the planned refurbishment, a staff member told us “We have not decided yet whether to have flooring or carpet.” The person whose room the staff member was referring to was not involved in the conversation or in any decisions about what type of flooring they preferred in their bedroom.

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 were cared for by a small team of care staff who they knew well. Each person had their own key worker who had oversight and responsibility for ensuring information was up to date and current. Staff told us how they enjoyed working with a small group of people. A staff member told us, “We can really get to know the people we support. We work in partnership with other services which means people get joined up care.”  The key workers had weekly meetings with the service users, and these meetings were used to discuss all aspects of peoples support plans and any personal goals and or aspirations.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People were given information relating to the service provision and what they could expect from the service. People’s individual communication needs were considered to make sure that they received information in their preferred formats. Staff were aware of people’s preferred communication methods and where required, specialist training was available.  

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, and their advocates felt their views were considered and respected. Professionals and key workers were invited to discuss individual current care and to review if the person would benefit from any additional or specialist support. There was a complaints procedure in place, and people were supported if they needed to raise any concerns. Verbal and written complaints were recorded, investigated, and responded to. Any learning from complaints was shared with all staff to help reduce any reoccurrence. At the time of our assessment there had not been any complaints made in recent months. 

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Care, support and treatment were delivered safely and equitably, with no discrimination based on protected characteristics. People's individual needs were recognised and respected, and the provider sought feedback to identify and address any barriers that might affect access to care. Staff understood and complied with the legal equity and human rights to ensure people received personalised inclusive care. Staff were recruited based on their ability to do the job and not on their ethnicity or personal beliefs.  

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 management and staff team described what equity in outcomes meant and how they supported people to access whatever services they needed to and be treated fairly as the same as a person who did not have specific needs. A staff member told us, “People should be supported and encouraged to reach their full potential, irrespective of any special needs and or disabilities.”  

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 registered manager told us they had collated as much information as possible as part of their live history which provided good oversight into their future wishes. Following the assessment the registered manager told us she would speak to people individually to make sure any special future wishes were known. Information such as religious beliefs were recorded in people’s care plans, in the event of them becoming unwell they would support individuals according to their wishes.