Stratford Road

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 64 (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. People’s rights were not always upheld. We saw people’s rights to their privacy and dignity were not always maintained when staff talked about them in their presence without their involvement.

People had 2 dedicated staff during the day which meant people could exercise the choice to do things when they wanted. However, a family member we spoke with felt there was not always enough meaningful activities offered to people.

Care plans were person centred and respectfully written about people. However, not all sections had been completed. Information about people’s future plans did not contain any information and there was nothing to suggest these had been discussed.

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. The provider worked with other professional agencies to ensure a continuity of care. The manager told us how they had been working with a professional recently to ensure a person’s placement within the service was seen as appropriate and meeting their needs.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Information was provided in accessible formats and differed depending upon each person’s communication needs. Staff were trained to use sign language to support communication which helped them understand the needs and wishes of people living in the service.

The service had information in formats people could understand. For example, care and support agreements were available in accessible formats to help people to understand what was written in them.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints and comments about their care, treatment and support. Where people had raised concerns, the provider had not always taken appropriate action to review the complaint and ensure concerns were addressed.

Generally, those we spoke with felt listened to. The family member told us they could talk to staff whenever needed. They said, “I don’t feel like I need to make an appointment to talk to staff, they are there whenever I need to talk.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People had routine health appointments as well as appointments for specific health related concerns. Staff ensured people attended appointments and were supported to advocate for themselves where possible in getting the services they needed.

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. Managers and staff used their knowledge of local services to ensure people’s outcomes were met. Managers told us how they were supporting a person to achieve an outcome around internet safety and were working with the person to balance their wish to access internet services whilst staying safe.

Care plans did not detail how people were supported to plan for their futures. People were suitably placed with their needs being met by staff, but this was not recorded. Whilst people’s immediate care needs were met, 1 person is living in a flat with a staircase as the only means of entry. Such issues needed to be considered but we found the provider’s care plan section about people’s futures had not been completed.

The provider told us they planned to change their care planning system in the near future and would review this information as part of the transfer. However, at the time of the inspection, this information was not in place.