Auden House Residential 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 outstanding. 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 placed people at the centre of their care and involved them in decisions about their treatment. Staff worked in partnership with people to respond to changes in their needs.

People received care that was tailored to their individual needs and preferences. Care plans reflected people’s likes, dislikes and personal histories, and were generally person-centred.

There was a consistent staff team, which meant staff knew people well. One relative said, “[Family member] likes being teased and having banter, and staff understand that, so they have a laugh together.”

The provider understood people’s diverse health and care needs and worked to provide joined-up, flexible care that supported choice and continuity.

Staff had positive working relationships with external professionals and services to ensure people received the support they needed. For example, visiting services such as opticians and podiatry attended the home, and the provider was in the process of arranging access to dental services.

The provider supported people to attend external appointments where possible. However, this was not always available in situations where people required urgent hospital care.

The provider ensured people received information in ways that met their individual needs. Systems were in place to support effective communication with people and their families.

People’s communication needs were assessed, and care plans set out how staff should support them. Staff adapted their approach to meet people’s needs. One relative said, “[Family member] speaks a lot in [a foreign language], and some staff use translation apps on their phones to communicate with them. They also put films on in their language.”

People and their relatives told us communication with staff and managers was good, including when people’s health needs changed.

Relatives received information in a variety of ways, including emails and social media updates. One relative told us, “They have family meetings and send the minutes by email so we can see what was discussed. They also use social media to share pictures for families.”

The provider made it easy for people to give feedback, share ideas and raise complaints. People were involved in decisions about their care and were kept informed about any changes made as a result.

There were a range of ways for people and their families to share their views, including meetings and surveys. People and their relatives consistently told us they felt able to speak up and share their ideas.

The provider supported people to access the care, treatment and support they needed in a timely way. However, further improvement was needed to ensure all people received meaningful engagement, particularly those who preferred one-to-one support.

People were supported to access a range of services by staff. One relative said, “The doctor comes in once a week, and the specialist nurse is here weekly as well. The hairdresser comes weekly, the podiatrist every few weeks, and the optician and hearing specialists visit from time to time.”

People had opportunities to take part in group activities and were encouraged to stay mobile, for example through armchair exercises. However, it was not always clear there was enough personalised engagement for people who preferred one-to-one activities or needed additional mental stimulation. One person said, “The activities worker asks if I want to join in, but I tend to stay here. I struggle to move around now and don’t want to bother the carers too much.” The provider gave examples of how they had supported some people to participate in gardening, in their well maintained garden, and trips into the community and used a specialist activity based provision to support the delivery of activities within the home.

The provider took account of people’s individual needs and worked to reduce inequality in people’s experiences and outcomes. Care and support were adapted to meet people’s circumstances.

People and their families were generally positive about their experience at the home. Feedback consistently highlighted that staff treated people with kindness and respect.

However, some people told us they would like more opportunities to go out and take part in activities. One person said, “I am very satisfied with the service here. We don’t usually do much during the day other than watch TV. There is not much to do here, and I would like to get out more.”

The provider supported people to plan for important life changes, including the end of their life, so they could make informed decisions about their future.

People were supported to discuss and record their wishes for the future where they wanted to. This information was used to develop care plans, including people’s preferred place of death.

Staff worked with external healthcare professionals to ensure people were comfortable and received appropriate care at the end of their lives.