Caraston Hall

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 continued to receive individualised care and support from staff who knew them well. Support plans were detailed and person‑centred, outlining people’s strengths as well as the support required from staff and other services. Plans were regularly reviewed and tailored to reflect each person’s unique needs and preferences. This enabled staff to support people in the way they wished and to help them lead full and active lives.

Staff understood the importance of providing care that promoted choice, upheld people’s rights, and supported them to develop greater independence. They also recognised the positive impact this had on people’s quality of life and overall, well‑being.

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 care from a range of appropriate health professionals to meet their individual needs and were supported to attend appointments as required. Support plans clearly identified who was involved in each person’s care and provided guidance on how and when these professionals should be consulted. Staff understood how to escalate changes in people’s needs to ensure timely referrals were made to relevant health services. The registered manager had effective processes in place for making referrals and working collaboratively with other agencies, which helped to promote a consistent and coordinated approach to care.

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

The registered manager understood the importance of meeting people’s communication needs. Support plans identified each person’s communication preferences and how they could best be supported to understand information. The registered manager ensured people had access to information in formats they could understand. For example, one person’s first language was not English. The registered manager explained that this person was supported through bilingual written plans, visual aids, and the use of a spoken translator when consent needed to be gained. We also saw that the person’s family was appropriately involved to support communication when important information needed to be shared, to ensure the person’s full understanding.

This approach helped to ensure people’s communication needs were known and met in line with the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The AIS is a framework, making it a legal requirement for all providers to ensure people with a disability or sensory loss can access and understand the information they are given.

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 had control over their lives and were actively involved in making decisions about how they wanted to be supported. People were fully involved in all decisions and were encouraged to share their views through regular reviews and meetings. The provider annually sought people’s views by asking people, relatives, and external professionals to rate various aspects of the service. We looked at some of the information from the latest survey and found the responses were positive.

People were aware of how to make a complaint and felt comfortable raising concerns if something was not right. The provider’s complaints procedure was freely available, and the home maintained a record of any complaints received. All complaints were thoroughly investigated in line with the provider’s own policy. This showed people's complaints were taken seriously.

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

People were treated fairly. The registered manager explained how they worked with other professionals to ensure people had equal access to care. Care records showed that individuals had access to a range of health and social care services tailored to their needs. Staff made appropriate referrals for treatment or specialist advice when required, and records showed that people were offered choices which staff respected. Where appropriate, people also had access to independent advocates.

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 service respected people’s diversity and welcomed individuals of all faiths and belief systems. There was no indication that people protected under the Equality Act would be discriminated against. The Equality Act protects people from discrimination, including on the grounds of disability, sexual orientation, race, and gender.

Staff had received training in equality and diversity and demonstrated an understanding of discriminatory practices. The registered manager recognised the importance of involving people, listening to them, and considering any inequalities or barriers they may face.

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.

All the people living at Caraston Hall were young adults and did not have life-limiting conditions. As such, end-of-life care planning had not been formally discussed with them. However, each person’s support plan held detailed information about the person's care and support needs. This helped to ensure people’s wishes and needs would be respected in an emergency.