243 Church Street

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 services were tailored to meet the needs of individuals and delivered to ensure flexibility, choice and continuity of care.

This service scored 79 (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.

Care plans were written using clear, concise language which informed staff about how to support each person in the way they liked to be supported. For example, in a person’s care plan it was stated, ‘I like you to run my bath before I come upstairs’. Another care plan advised ‘Give me 5 minutes to process when I need to go to bed. You may need to break the request down to ‘stand up’ and this will help to start the process for me’. Another care plan advised staff about specific words a person used and what they meant by each one, allowing staff to respond to their needs. This showed the provider was committed to providing person-centred care and ensuring all staff have clear instructions on how to approach each area of a person’s support. It also showed the provider knew people well and had taken time to get to know and understand them.

Staff and leaders treated people as individuals and adapted their support to personal preferences. This was only possible by them knowing the people very well. We observed staff adapting their communication approach and anticipating people’s needs. This showed care plans were being followed, staff knew people and understood how to meet their needs. For example, staff advised us that one person would need time to process a request. Staff asked the person a question and waited until they had processed the question and communicated their response before acting. Staff and leaders also knew another person liked to hold a meeting with them after the provider quality meeting was held. Leaders made time for this and scheduled it into their day, showing they valued the person and were willing to adapt their approach to meet the person’s needs.

Leaders completed regular updates in an ‘achievement and dignity file’ where a detailed report was completed on people’s progress. For example, a person’s report stated, ‘[Person] has spent time dancing in their room with staff, which they appeared to enjoy and provided them with a fun way to exercise and keep fit’. This showed the provider recognised the activities the person enjoyed and were good for their wellbeing. This could then be used to inform the planning of person-centred activities for people going forward. These reports were sent out to people and their relatives to keep them informed of the progress they had made and celebrate their achievements.

Staff and leaders had completed training in person-centred care, supporting consistent, individualised practice.

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 leaders received a comprehensive training programme on subjects such as learning disability, autism, epilepsy, mental health, epilepsy and dysphagia which ensured they understood people’s diverse needs. This ensured the provider made appropriate referrals and involved other services, where needed.

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

Easy read signs were put up on the walls throughout the building – for example, in the kitchen where the fridge and store cupboards were labelled. This meant people were able to access information in a way that met their communication needs, allowing them to be more independent as they were able to find things without having to ask staff.

Information on policies and procedures, feedback and how to make a complaint were displayed clearly, which meant visitors were able to access this information without having to ask staff for it.

The provider demonstrated a highly positive, open and inclusive culture, where seeking, listening to, and acting on feedback was fully embedded in practice. Systems were not only in place but were consistently used to ensure people had genuine influence over how the service operated. People were empowered to share their views, raise concerns, and contribute ideas in a way that reflected their individual communication needs. Staff closed the feedback loop by informing people of changes made as a direct result, demonstrating a strong commitment to transparency, responsiveness and continuous improvement.

There was clear evidence of proactive and creative engagement approaches, regular residents’ and relatives’ meetings provided structured opportunities for involvement, while flexible engagement methods, including telephone discussions, ensured accessibility for all. Feedback processes were tailored and innovative, incorporating easy-read materials and bespoke tools using simple, open-ended questions. This demonstrated that the provider went beyond standard approaches, ensuring systems were inclusive, accessible and designed around people’s diverse cognitive and communication needs, rather than expecting people to adapt to the system.

The provider showed a deep understanding of people as individuals, Staff recognised that involvement and engagement did not look the same for everyone and adapted practice accordingly. For example, where attending supermarkets caused anxiety and distress, this was not treated as a barrier to involvement but as an opportunity to adapt approaches. People remained actively involved in planning and decision-making within the comfort of their home environment. This demonstrated highly responsive, flexible and compassionate care, where people’s emotional wellbeing and preferences were prioritised whilst still promoting independence and choice.

The provider’s approach evidenced a strong commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion. Systems and processes were deliberately designed to be accessible to people with a range of cognitive abilities, ensuring no one was excluded from participating in decisions about their care. This proactive and thoughtful approach showed the provider anticipated needs rather than reacting to them, which is a key feature of outstanding services.

There was also evidence of innovation and leadership beyond the immediate service. The provider extended its inclusive ethos to prospective residents and their families through accessible website information, including easy-read formats and carefully considered guidance to support decision-making. By acknowledging that choosing a care home can be complex and emotionally challenging, and providing practical tools to support this process, the provider demonstrated a values-driven and compassionate approach that placed people at the centre of care even before admission.

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

The provider continually reviewed people’s health and wellbeing and reflected upon whether adaptations could be made to maintain or improve people’s care. For example, a person enjoyed having a bath, but their mobility had declined, making it difficult for them to access a regular bath. The provider worked with the person and their relatives to come up with a plan to have an accessible bath fitted. This showed the provider continually ensured people had equity in access, by reviewing and adapting the environment to meet people’s needs.

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 provider thought creatively about how people with different needs could experience the same outcomes. For example, a person who suffered from significant anxiety when accessing the community was being supported by staff to build their confidence in going out. Staff supported the person to access spaces in nature where it was not busy, and they could enjoy the sensory experience of being outdoors. The provider’s report stated, ‘These experiences are helping to gradually rebuild [person’s] confidence when going out into the community’.

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.

Each person’s care plan included information about their preferences should they require emergency medical treatment, such as resuscitation if they stopped breathing. Where a person was unable to express their wishes, a mental capacity assessment had been completed. Decisions were then made in the person’s best interests, with appropriate consultation involving relatives and relevant health professionals.