Crown Mews

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 64 (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 received person centred care that was in line with their preferences. The management team and staff team knew the people they supported very well including their individual likes and dislikes. People's care records reflected their physical, mental, and emotional needs to guide staff. These records were updated by staff in response to people’s changing needs and interests. People were supported to follow their interests, and keyworker sessions were used to discuss people’s goals and aspirations.

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 staff team worked with people to help ensure continuity of care and support. Staff knew people well and contacted and worked with external health and social care professionals to help promote and maintain people’s well-being.

The provider did not always ensure information was appropriate, accurate, up to date, and provided in formats tailored to individual needs. Information was available in different formats, such pictorial information and now and next boards. However, feedback received indicated that these were not always used effectively, showing processes were not completely embedded. For example, a professional reported that staff communication was not always “appropriately adapted to meet the individual’s needs.” Feedback from relatives was mixed. One relative said, “I think they [staff] understand how [name] communicates,” while another reported, “Staff don’t understand how [name] communicates or my descriptions of it.” Care plans contained relevant information about people’s communication needs. The management team described how observational quality checks and supervision were being used to monitor staff practice, ensure care plans were followed and support improvements in this area.

The provider had not always made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment, and support. We found that historically, staff had not always involved people in decisions about their care or told them what had changed as a result. Relatives told us that they were not always listened to or involved. One relative told us, “There has been a lot lacking especially with communication with me in terms of decisions. I’ve not been included in or informed of, for example, doctors’ appointments, nutritionist, and psychiatrist.” The provider acknowledged these concerns and had taken steps to improve communication, working more closely with families to ensure they were appropriately involved and informed. One relative said, “They have listened to things that have been said and they are on the right track now.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it. The management team and staff team understood the needs of people with a learning disability and autistic people and tried to ensure that there were no barriers to people receiving the specialist support required. Staff contacted and involved external health professionals when needed. They followed professionals’ advice and guidance to try to help make sure that people were being looked after safely.

Staff and leaders did not have fully embedded processes to consistently and actively listen to information about individuals who may be at greater risk of experiencing inequalities in their care or outcomes. Key worker sessions had previously been sporadic, with their frequency only increasing in recent months. Although systems were in place to gather feedback and tailor care to meet individual needs, we were not assured that these processes were consistently embedded or effectively implemented in practice. The provider acknowledged that improvements were needed and confirmed they were taking steps to strengthen communication with people and their relatives, with the aim of improving experiences and outcomes.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future. The service was not supporting anyone at end of life at the time of inspection. However, the management team demonstrated an understanding of when and how to involve other health and social care professionals to ensure people received coordinated and appropriate support should end of life care be required.