Coton Grange

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 71 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Improvements were needed to ensure all aspects of people’s care consistently met their individual preferences. Some people told us they would like the option of having more baths. One person told us, “They are very good to me, they look after me. I wouldn’t mind a bath once a week though. I don’t know who to ask though.” Another person said, “I feel very safe here, especially at bath time when they strip wash me. I do prefer a bath, but they strip wash me.”

Although records confirmed people received baths, this was not consistently reflected in their care records. We discussed this with the manager who told us they would revisit this with people.

There were systems in place to ensure people were involved with the planning, monitoring and reviewing of their care. Care plans detailed individual preferences and what was important to the 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.

There were systems and processes in place to ensure people’s care was regularly reviewed and updated, this included planned reviews or when incidents, accidents or changes occurred. The provider ensured changes with care were shared with staff through the handover process so care could consistently be delivered to people.

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

People and relatives were happy with how information was provided. Communication care plans were in place and detailed how people chose to communicate and how information should be made available to them. The manager confirmed information was provided to people in a format or language they could understand if requested. Staff were aware of people’s communication needs, what this meant for people and how to offer support with this.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

People and their relatives felt they were involved with the planning of their care, and they were listened to when needed. One person told us, “They listen to us when we suggest things.”

People also had the opportunity to attend meetings and individual reviews where they could share any concerns. The manager had introduced a ‘you said we did board’ in the home to show the action they were taking in response to people’s feedback. The manager told us they were in the process of designing a survey for people and families which would be used to gain feedback about care.

There was a system in place to ensure complaints were responded to in line with the provider’s own policy and procedure.

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

People raised no concerns with the support they received and had access to other health professionals when needed. The provider told us they worked alongside external agencies, including the district nurse team who they could engage with if needed.

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.

The manager was aware of inequalities people receiving support may face. There were systems in place to consider and act on people’s experiences in care if needed.

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.

Although no one was in receipt of end of life care, detailed end of life plans were in place for people. They had been completed with people and those important to them. These had considered people’s choices and preferences during this time.