Birchwood

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 received care that was person centred and tailored to their individual needs, preferences and choices. Care plans were detailed, personalised and reflected people’s routines, communication needs and what was important to them. People and, where appropriate, their relatives were involved in the development and review of care plans to ensure these remained relevant and up to date.

Person centred care was embedded throughout the service. Staff knew people well and used their understanding to provide care in a way that respected people as individuals. We observed staff adapting their approach in response to people’s preferences and mood and supporting people to make choices about their daily routines, meals, activities, and personal environment. People told us they felt listened to and understood which helped ensure care was delivered in a way that was meaningful and responsive to each person.

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.

The service promoted an integrated approach to care provision that promoted continuity across people’s life history, identities and aspirations. Care was delivered in a way that recognised individuals as experts in their own lives and supported them to use their lived experience in meaningful and influential ways. For example, A person expressed a strong wish to return to the school they had attended as a young person to speak with staff about their experiences as a learner and the long-term impact of staff culture on outcomes, confidence and identity. This visit was a purposeful, values-led engagement focused on learning, reflection and improvement. It enabled the person to reconnect with an important part of their life journey, to be recognised as a contributor rather than a recipient of services, and to influence practice through their lived experience. It demonstrated strong integration between adult social care and education and promoted shared learning across services.

The service worked in close partnership with a range of health, education and social care professionals to ensure continuity of care across settings and life stages. This joined up approach supported people to experience a smooth transition between services and remained responsive as people’s needs and circumstances changed.

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

Care plans outlined people’s individual communication needs and these were reviewed to ensue people were supported to communicate effectively in line with the Accessible Information Standard. A range of communication tools were used to support people to express their views and be involved in decisions about their care. These included eye gaze devices, tablets, Alexa, pictures and Makaton signing.

During the inspection we observed staff had a good understanding of people’s communication needs and used appropriate methods to support people to communicate and have their needs met.

Information such as meeting minutes and key policies were available in easy read and pictorial formats to promote people’s involvement in their care and support.

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.

Concerns and complaints were logged with comprehensive records of the actions taken and measures put in place to prevent a reoccurrence.

Systems were in place to enable people and their relatives to share feedback and raise concerns. An easy read complaints policy was accessible to people, and the provider facilitated resident meetings which was an opportunity to give feedback on the service. People felt able to raise concerns with the registered manager and staff. A person commented, “[Registered managers name] is nice, I have had to talk to them in the past, they always listen and do something about any concerns I raise with them”.

Annual surveys were conducted, which was an opportunity to seek feedback and listen to people. People’s feedback was captured in easy read surveys and displayed on “You Said, We Did” boards.

Relatives were aware of the complaints procedure and felt able to raise concerns. A relative commented, “[Registered managers name] is open, wants us to let them know if there are any issues. They are very keen to keep communication going. It feels more like a partnership. They are receptive, responsive, great communicator, open and personable”.

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

Staff supported people to access care and treatment to minimise delays in their care and breakdown barriers they encountered in relation to their physical and learning disability. The service was accessible to people and people were provided with equipment and aids to promote their access to all areas of the service and the community.

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 experienced equitable care that recognised and responded to their individual needs, circumstances and preferences. The service had systems in place to identify and reduce potential inequalities, including those related to communication, disability and health needs.

Care planning promoted fair access to services, opportunities and support, and staff adapted their approach to ensure people were included, listened to and treated with respect. People had access to health professionals and meaningful activities in line with their wishes, which supported their wellbeing and quality of life. Feedback from people and relatives was positive and reflected that people felt valued, supported and treated fairly.

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.

People who wished to discuss end of life preferences were supported to do so, and their wishes were explored and documented. At the time of the inspection none of the people using the service had a “Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation” (DNACPR) in place.