Champion House

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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.

Feedback from individuals and their relatives regarding involvement in care planning was mixed. One person stated, "I can’t remember when I last saw my care documentation." A relative reported, "I have never been involved with any of her care documentation," while another added, "I haven’t been involved I don’t think im unsure." However we saw evidence to support people and their relatives were involved.

We found mixed responses to activities in the home. However, on both days of assessment we found people actively involved in various activities. We saw various pictures across the service showing involvement from people in various activities inside and out of the home. One person told us in relation to be limited drivers. This was discussed at the residents meeting, and the management team were looking into how to improve this, However it was also noted people were able to use taxis and had done so previously.

 

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. Examples of good practice included timely referrals to health services, continuity in staffing to support relationship-building, and collaborative working with multidisciplinary teams.

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

At this assessment, we noted improvements in the updating of care plans. However, feedback from individuals receiving care and their families was mixed regarding their involvement in the care planning process. While some felt engaged, others reported limited participation or understanding. We did however see people involved in these.

We did evidence care plans with picture-based plans, we did discuss with the registered manager to look at these in relation to ensuring accurate pictures reflecting the person. We did observe one person who had appropriate aids in place to support visual alerts to support their communication.

The provider supported individuals to share feedback, contribute ideas, and raise concerns regarding their care, treatment, and support.

We observed a residents meeting where people were encouraged to express preferences, suggest changes, and were fully engaged in the discussion. Feedback gathered from individuals demonstrated confidence in the current management team and their approachability. Comments included: “I’ll speak to the manager,” and “The manager we have now is very approachable. It wasn’t always this way.” Others stated, “I have spoken to the manager about an issue I had, and it was dealt with satisfactorily,” and “I will always approach the manager if needed. I’m confident it would be properly addressed.” One person added, “If staff don’t deal with it, I have no problem speaking with the manager.”

The provider ensured that individuals could access the care, support, and treatment they required in a timely manner.

People had access to healthcare professionals when needed. During our visit, we spoke with external professionals attending the service. One professional stated, "I am here to support people, and staff can use me to access what people need. I have offered to provide training if required in the future."

Care plans reviewed during the assessment evidenced that individuals had access to general practitioners, speech and language therapy (SALT) services, and other relevant professionals.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes.

The provider complied with equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination, having regard to the needs of people with different protected characteristics and making reasonable adjustments.

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.

End of life care plans were in place for people. These detailed people’s wishes and arrangements such as who to contact, who they would like to be with them during their final days, whether the person wished to be admitted to hospital and if the person wanted medical intervention, together with any funeral plans in place. This ensured staff respected the person’s end of life wishes. Where possible, people had been involved with the creation of the care plan to give their thoughts and directions. A staff member told us, “This is very important to us. We must ensure that people receive the right care when it comes to this point in their lives, we do have people here and we work closely as a team and with the manager to ensure we are providing the best care and treatment at that time.”