Highmarket House

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 as 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 needs were recorded in their care plans for how they wished to be supported. These included needs related to their physical and mental well-being and their preferences.

People were able to personalise their rooms. People were involved in deciding which activities and trips were offered. A platform was in place to record individuals' engagement in activities which staff and relatives were able to access. This enabled staff to share information about what activities the person had taken part and if they have enjoyed it, which relatives could view and comment on. This enabled people and their relatives to stay more connected.

One relative said, “It really has a family atmosphere, I try to go round and visit most days, and I always feel welcome.”

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.

Staff and managers had worked well to integrate the home into the local community and build effective relationships with health and social care professionals.

Care plans used a nationally recognised assessment and guide to support people at different stages of dementia and other cognitive impairments to experience meaningful and enriching lives.

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

We did not receive any concerns from people about how information was provided to them. Information about people was collected and shared to meet data protection legislation requirements. Peoples’ communication needs were recorded.

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.

Meetings with people and their relatives are held regularly so that any issues, suggestions and feedback can be raised. A resident ambassador programme was in place and those residents took an active role within the home such as welcoming members of the Senior Citizens Club and co-leading resident’s meetings. A relatives ambassador role was also in place, and they played a key role in resident and relatives meeting, setting agendas and speaking on behalf of those who were unable to attend. A relative said “I do go to the Relatives Meetings, I do wish more people attended but for me it is a good opportunity. We observe that there really is a team ethic there and that there are lots of long serving staff.”

A Tea at 3pm scheme was in place where everyone stops work for 10-15 minutes at this time and spends time with a person.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People’s care was provided in a timely way, and in line with best practice, quality standards and legal requirements.

The provider used feedback to seek to improve access for people more likely to experience barriers or delays in accessing their care. People told us staff accompanied them to appointments if they needed this support to access the treatment they needed. The local GP visits the home weekly; the provider worked closely with the district nurse team. Every 6 weeks a meeting was held with the GP and community health service to discuss any concerns and agree on any new processes or interventions, ensuring proactive measures were taken to promote well-being.

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 did not experience discrimination or inequality in how their care was delivered and the support they received. There were policies to promote people’s equality and diversity needs.

Staff received training on equality, diversity and inclusion. Assessment and care planning processes took into account a wide range of needs, including those related to disability, age, gender, religion and other 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.

Care plans detailed peoples’ personal wishes for their future care needs. We noted care plans recorded people chosen preferences for end-of-life care. The service supported people receiving palliative care, and staff had received training in this area.