Grove Place Retirement Village

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’s care plans reflected their physical, mental, emotional and social needs, including those related to their protected characteristics under the Equality Act. People had a copy of their care plan which they said reflected their care needs and was updated when their needs changed. Staff were person centred in their approach to people. A staff member commented, ‘they [people] don’t want the same choices everyday so you check with them each time what they want and how, so they have a choice.’

The provider had oversight of people’s care plans through their person centred care audit. The provider used the audit to check care plans accurately reflected people’s care needs and preferences.

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 said they received continuity of staffing and that care delivery was co-ordinated where people were supported by both the provider and any external providers. The staff team was stable, there were not any staff vacancies, so people received care from regular staff.

Health care professionals said the registered manager worked with them to ensure the delivery of people’s care was well co-ordinated.

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

The registered manager understood their legal requirements in relation to the Accessible Information Standard (AiS), which describes how services should identify, flag, share, meet and review people’s information and communication needs. People's communication needs and preferences were recorded. Although no-one currently supported required information to be provided in an alternative format, this was available if required. People's consent was sought before any personal information about them was shared.

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.

The registered manager had regular contact with people which enabled people to raise any issues with them directly. People were also sent surveys to seek their feedback on a range of aspects of their care.

The provider had a feedback process, which detailed how people could raise any complaints or compliments. People felt they could raise issues if required. The provider’s feedback record which encompassed both complaints and compliments showed any issues raised with them had been addressed promptly for people.

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

People reported the service was reliable and said staff arrived as scheduled. The service was based on-site, which enabled the registered manager to be flexible, in terms of changing people’s visit times or increasing or decreasing visits in response to changes in people’s needs and preferences. People had access to a 24 hour emergency call system and care staff were available at night if people either needed scheduled care or there was an emergency. Partners confirmed staff were accessible if they needed to speak with 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 said they were treated fairly by staff, who had also received training in relation to diagnoses such as dementia and understood how to provide people with person centred care. The provider ensured staff’s delivery of people’s care was aligned to the human rights principles of fairness, respect, equality, dignity and autonomy (FREDA) which ensured peoples’ care was provided in a way which recognised them as individuals and upheld their rights.

The registered manager told us how they had also educated staff in other departments within the retirement village about dementia, to ensure staff in all departments had an understanding of people's needs related to their protected characteristics.

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.

People were consulted about their end of life wishes and preferences. Staff had undertaken end of life care training and a number of staff were palliative care champions. Staff spoken with felt well supported in this aspect of their work with both people and their relatives. Staff felt enabled to support people to receive their end of life care in the place and manner of their choosing. Staff were supported in their work by external health professionals, to ensure people were provided with compassionate, comfortable and dignified care.