Bailey 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 of the Responsive key question, we rated it 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 they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Each person had a detailed care plan which provided staff with information about how to meet their needs and preferences. These were regularly reviewed and updated, including when people’s needs changed. We discussed with the registered manager that the care plan plans could be developed further to include more detail about people’s preferences and goals in relation to activities.

Daily records showed that care was delivered in line with people’s care plans. Staff knew people’s preferences well and we observed staff were responsive to people’s needs and wishes. A relative told us that staff “Do things with [Person] on their terms. When they are wanting to do them.”

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 provider worked with the local authority and health partners to ensure people’s holistic needs were met. People had access to the GP and other specialist practitioners where needed, such as foot health. People had received health checks and medicines reviews, where appropriate. One relative told us how the service had recently supported their loved one when they needed to have an operation, and this had gone smoothly.

If anyone needed to attend hospital, the provider had effective arrangements to ensure that relevant medical and care information was shared, supporting with continuity of care.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were suitable for people’s needs.

People’s communication needs were clearly documented within their care plans, and staff took these individual requirements into account when sharing information and discussing choices. Some materials, such as satisfaction surveys and information leaflets, were available in easy‑read or pictorial formats. However, there remained further opportunities to broaden the range of accessible information and communication tools used. The registered manager told us they planned to introduce more visual and pictorial tools to assist people in expressing their choices.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People and their relatives had opportunities to provide feedback through annual satisfaction surveys and review meetings. They were also able to speak directly with the registered manager or staff if they wished to raise any issues. The satisfaction survey for the current year was due to be issued soon. Staff also listened to people’s non-verbal means of expressing if they were unhappy about something and tailored their support accordingly.

The provider had a complaints procedure in place, although the registered manager confirmed no formal complaints had been received during the past year. Relatives told us they would feel confident raising any concerns should they have any.

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

The provider recorded information about each person’s mobility, sensory and communication requirements in their care plan, to support equitable access and promote inclusion.

Staff supported people to access the services they needed, offering both practical assistance and emotional reassurance to help them attend appointments. They told us how they were trying to arrange access to dental care for one person at the time of our assessment. They upheld people’s human rights by recognising and responding to individual access needs.

Staff and leaders listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tried to tailor people’s care in response to this.

Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of each person’s individual needs and circumstances, including awareness of any protected characteristics under the Equality Act. This helped ensure that support was tailored and responsive, reducing barriers and promoting equitable outcomes for people using the service. Care plans included information about people’s preferences, interests and what mattered most to them, helping staff provide person‑centred care that respected individuality.

The provider had an Equality and Diversity policy in place, and staff had completed training linked to the Equality Act. This supported staff to recognise and challenge potential inequalities, adapt support where needed, and uphold people’s rights.

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.

Staff had completed end-of-life awareness training. People were able to record any preferences they had about the final stages of their lives, within their care plans. At the time of our assessment, no one using the service required end‑of‑life care. The provider confirmed they would work in partnership with relevant health and palliative care professionals if such support became necessary, to ensure care remained coordinated, respectful and responsive to people’s wishes.