Hourigan House Residential Care Home

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 71 (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.

Staff understood what person centred care meant and why this was important. One staff member told us, “Each person is an individual and their care needs may differ so you shouldn’t treat them the same. What works for one may not work for another.”

Overall, care records were detailed and explained how people wanted to be supported. Each contained a range of person centred information, to help staff understand people as individuals. Care plans consisted of 3 sections; what care and support needs I have; this is the help I need from you and this is how I know it works. The layout of the care plans ensured people needs and wishes were central to how their care was devised and delivered.

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.

Relatives spoke positively about how this was achieved. One stated, “The staff are really interested in [relatives’] past life. He talks about the past a lot. Whenever he is unwell, they call me or another member of the family. Communication is very good.” Another said, “When [relative] came here, he was very weak after being very ill. They [staff] do half hourly observations to make sure he is okay and they have put a pressure mat by his bed, due to being at risk of falls.”

Staff worked well with healthcare professionals to ensure people received joined up care and support from everyone involved in their care. A visiting social worker told us, “Communication is good. I recently moved someone in, and they have settled well. Management are good at completing any actions and involving families.”

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

People’s communication needs were assessed and recorded in their care plans and shared with staff to ensure these needs would be met. This included reference to any aids they required to support effective communication.

Information had been made available in ways people could understand. Dementia friendly signage was placed around the home, to help people identify communal areas such as bathrooms, toilets and the dining room. An accessible activities board was on display outside the dining room with picture cards used to advertise each daily activity. This was supplemented by a more detailed written activity schedule.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. However, it was not clear whether actions had been taken and changes made.

People’s views had been sought via resident and relative meetings, which were held every 2 months. A new meeting schedule and agenda had been introduced for 2026, with the first meeting scheduled for February. Although people could raise issues and put forth suggestions during meetings, it was unclear whether the provider had acted on these, as meeting minutes did not include an action plan, nor was there a record the previous meetings minutes had been reviewed at the start of the next meeting, so people could be told about any changes. We discussed with the registered manager the importance of this feedback loop, to ensure people felt heard. They agreed to implement a process for doing so from the next meeting onwards.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. However, it was not clear whether actions had been taken and changes made.

People’s views had been sought via resident and relative meetings, which were held every 2 months. A new meeting schedule and agenda had been introduced for 2026, with the first meeting scheduled for February. Although people could raise issues and put forth suggestions during meetings, it was unclear whether the provider had acted on these, as meeting minutes did not include an action plan, nor was there a record the previous meetings minutes had been reviewed at the start of the next meeting, so people could be told about any changes. We discussed with the registered manager the importance of this feedback loop, to ensure people felt heard. They agreed to implement a process for doing so from the next meeting onwards.