Archived: The Leys

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. Staff we spoke to knew people well, including the risks they might face and how they preferred to be supported. We found that people had been supported in personalising their rooms with items of interest and sentimental value, colour schemes, and furnishings of their choice. A person told us, “I like everything about here.”

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. A consistent and overall long-standing staff team meant that people were supported by staff who knew them well. A person had been supported to maintain their friendship from a social club they attended, and staff supported them with days out for activities such as bowling and keeping in contact on the phone. A relative said, “It’s [Relative’s] home and the staff know [Relative] very well.”

The provider supplied appropriate information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. For example, a relative said, “The menu goes up on the notice board which means when we visit, we can discuss with [Relative] what they’re having for their meals that day.”

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. For example, there were monthly keyworker meetings where people discussed goals, gave feedback on their care and their health needs were reviewed. A person said, “We have monthly meetings, we talk about everything.” A relative said, “[My Relative] helps to create the menu, assists with the cooking and unpacks the order when it’s delivered. [Relative] loves being involved in organising the meals.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The service was accessible to people in relation to their mobility needs. People had been supported in accessing external health care services appropriately. A relative said, “If [Relative] needs the GP or has a hospital appointment the offer is made for the family to go but my [relative] prefers the staff to go with them.”

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. For example, there was evidence of leadership oversight of incidents and accidents to confirm if any actions were needed to promote better outcomes for people, such as reviewing if people should be referred to external health professionals for any emerging health and care needs. A relative said, “The residents are very much involved in the life of the home.”

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. At the time of our inspection, nobody was approaching the end of their life. However, where appropriate, end-of-life wishes had been considered and documented within people’s care plans.