House of the Flame Lily

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 changed to requires improvement.

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The provider was in breach of the legal regulations relating to person centred care.

This service scored 54 (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.

People did not always receive person centred care as they had not always been involved with all care decisions and the care they received was not always individual to them. For example, people had not been involved with decisions about how their monies were stored and how their individual hours were delivered.

However, there was evidence in some care plans to show the provider had considered some preferences, such as their likes and dislikes. Staff appeared to know people well, however were not always able to demonstrate they fully understood what people’s diagnosis may mean to them.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

As care plans and risk assessments were not always accurate or sufficiently detailed, we could not be assured people received consistent care. There was no effective system in place to monitor and review care.

People and relatives felt they were supported by a consistent staff team. One person told us, “There is regular reliable staff”. There were systems in place to ensure people had a smaller staff team available to support them so consistent care could be delivered.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Communication care plans were in place and detailed how people chose to communicate and how information should be made available to them. Leaders told us key policies were available in an easy read format should people wish to access these. Staff were aware of people’s communication needs and how to offer support with this.

However, we could not always be assured these systems and plans were followed. For example, there was no evidence to demonstrate how people had been involved with the menu planning, and this was written in a format some people may not understand. As reported on under medicines management when people maybe in pain and communicated nonverbally there was no detail to show how this person may present.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

Relatives felt they were involved with their relations care, and they were listened to when needed. However, as there was no evidence to show people were involved with key decisions about their care we could not be assured how they were involved with this process.

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

The provider did not ensure that all people who used the service received care in line with the supported living model.

We saw some people’s medicines were stored away from their individual homes in communal storage. This meant some people did not have access to their own medicines.

However, systems were in place to ensure people could access care, support and treatment from other agencies when they needed it. People and relatives told us they could access other health professionals as required.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

As people’s care was not always tailored to deliver a model of supported living, we could not be assured people always received equitable experiences.

There were systems in place to consider and act on people’s experiences in care, if needed. The registered manager was aware of inequalities people receiving support may face and where they could get support with this.

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.

Leaders confirmed they were not supporting anyone who was currently receiving end of life care; however, they could consider this as part of the assessment process where appropriate.