Barn Park 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 Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Care planning did not always demonstrate person centred care as they did not show how the individual was involved, or where appropriate, their family’s involvement. People were involved at the assessment stage.

Relatives said they were kept up to date with changes and involved in decisions. However, the style of records in the reablement unit made it difficult to see how staff clearly understood the goals and targets of the people admitted to the rehabilitation unit. Without effective records, reviews and updates could not effectively take place. The provider and staff confirmed since opening the rehabilitation unit they had not completed appropriate care plans. Instead, they had been using the referral form from the local authority. This meant there was no personalised care plan in place, which was their responsibility to complete.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff completed training which helped them understand the importance of meeting people’s preferences and promoting people’s choices and rights. People’s different communication needs were met. Staff actively listened to information from people living with dementia. They recognised which people were more likely to experience inequality because of their word finding difficulties, and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. People appeared to feel listened to, for example they did not become frustrated in their conversations with staff. Families feedback was positive about their relative’s day to day experience.

Visitors were sometimes unsure how much people participated in activities or social events, but felt their relatives chose how they wanted to spend their time. We reviewed records of social interactions and activities to see if they met their individual needs and staff acknowledged this was an area for further improvement. Staff recognised the importance of social stimulation in maintaining people’s well-being and feeling involved, and where possible carried out social activities as part of their care role. The new manager was in the process of recruiting a staff member specific for social activities.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.