Link 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 inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 had been involved in planning their care. They had annual reviews with their family members or advocates, the care staff and social worker to review their care and make any changes needed.

People and their relatives were able to tell us about their needs and the care plans accurately reflected people’s needs. Staff told us they had time to read people’s care plans, so they knew what care was needed to support people safely and to encourage their development. Goal based activity books had been developed to reflect how the staff supported people to increase their independence.

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 were supported by a consistent staff group. People knew and liked the staff, and it was clear they felt comfortable talking to them about any concerns they had. When a person was in hospital, staff worked collaboratively with hospital staff to ensure the person had the support needed for hospital staff to understand their care needs.

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

Information for people in the home was presented in written and pictorial form to enable people to access the information independently. For example, we saw information in both formats on what to do in the event of an emergency.

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 and their families had been asked to fill in questionnaires about their thoughts on the care provided. These were analysed and used to improve the quality of care provided. In addition, there were regular meetings for the people living in the home to discuss their care. For example, we saw in one meeting people had discussed activities at Christmas. No one had raised any formal complaints about the care. Relatives told us they were able to raise things with the manager if needed, however they had not needed to do so. One relative said, “I can never fault the care provided.”

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

Staff supported people to appointments when needed. For example, they would support people to get to the location the appointment was taking place. People could choose if they wanted to be supported by family or if they wanted staff to go into the appointment with them. This ensured healthcare professionals had access to all the information they would need to assess and treat the person.

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.

When a person was in hospital staff visited them twice a day to support their needs. This ensured hospital staff were able to fully understand the people’s needs. Staff were able to advocate for the person to ensure they were receiving the correct amount of care, support and treatment to ensure their outcome was maximised.

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.

Where it was appropriate planning for the future had been included in people’s care plans. However, this was done on a person-by-person basis as some people were young and did not want information on end-of-life plans in their care plan.

In addition, staff told us they had discussed the need to have bereavement plans in place for when people’s loved ones passed away. This was because a bereavement was a traumatic time for people, and they would need help, support and understanding to grieve.