Isabella’s Home Ltd

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.

This is the first assessment for this registered service.

This key question has been rated 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.

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

People and their relatives were involved in their care plans where they had shown a desire to do so.

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.

In order to provide continuity of care, people received consistent care from regular staff, which meant staff were familiar with people’s needs.

Where people’s needs were identified as having changed by the provider, they worked with other professionals to source support. For example, the provider obtained additional staffing for a person they felt would benefit from an increase in their care hours.

There were systems and processes in place to ensure people’s care was regularly reviewed and updated. The provider ensured there were systems in place to share this information with staff so people could receive consistent care.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs for example the provider shared documents such as policies in easy-read formats.

Communication care plans were in place and detailed how people chose to communicate and how information should be made available to them. For example, care plans detailed how some people’s communication preference was to write things down, which enabled them to better communicate their needs and wishes.

Information was available to people in a format or language they could understand, if this was 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 relatives were involved with their care and knew how to complain. One relative told us, “I did bring up some issues; they did seem to take them on board.”

Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Feeback was sought from people, either through meetings or surveys, and the provider had taken action to implement people’s suggestions. For example, people had asked for a more comfortable garden space where they could relax. As a response, the provider redecorated the garden area, which was being used by people at the service during our visit. There was a system in place to ensure complaints were responded to in-line with the providers complaints policy.

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

During our site visit ,facilities were accessible to the people living at the service, and guidance was in place to support people during emergency or unplanned care. Information was available to people in ways they could understand, and people used alternative methods of communication to ensure people could discuss their care in ways they felt able.

The registered manager regularly spoke with staff to discuss people’s needs, staff were aware of people’s needs and staff told us they felt confident raising concerns with the registered manager. This meant any identified barriers to people’s care could be reviewed and discussed to find solutions.

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.

People we spoke with told us they felt listened to and did not raise any concerns regarding how they experienced equality.

Leaders were aware of inequalities people in receipt of support may face and told us they would follow set processes as outlined within their policy if concerns were identified. At the time of the assessment, no concerns had been identified.

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.

At the time of the assessment no people were receiving end of life care. However, people and those important to them had discussed certain aspects of people’s future care where this had been expressed. These had considered people’s choices and preferences during this time.