The Bungalow

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 service was in breach of legal regulations in relation to dignity and 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.

People did not always receive person-centred care. Records, activities and aspects of the environment did not consistently reflect people’s individual needs, preferences and wellbeing.

People did not always receive person-centred care. Care records contained outdated and inconsistent information and did not always reflect people's current needs, preferences and abilities. Opportunities to participate in meaningful activities were not always promoted and support was not consistently adapted to meet changing needs. One person’s needs had changed, and their care plan did not contain clear information about the current activities they enjoyed, we saw they often declined the activities they were offered.

Some people were not supported to access activities in line with the guidance in their care plans. One person’s care plan stated they would like to access the community every day; we reviewed the care notes for their stays at the service for the last 3 months and saw this had not happened, no reason was recorded and no follow up had taken place to understand why they were not accessing the community every day.

People did not always experience care in an environment that reflected a person-centred culture. The service was not maintained in a way that demonstrated people were valued. A number of maintenance and decorative issues were identified throughout the home, including damaged fixtures, unfinished decoration and clutter in communal areas. These concerns had not been addressed, resulting in an environment that was not always welcoming or supportive of people's wellbeing.
 

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.

Systems did not always support the delivery of consistent care. Information relating to people's care and support was held across multiple documents and recording systems, making it difficult to maintain clear oversight of risks, incidents and support needs. Staff were not always able to identify the most up-to-date records.
 

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

People's communication needs were not always accurately reflected in care records. Communication plans contained inconsistent information and did not always provide staff with clear guidance about how best to support people when preferred communication methods were not effective.
 

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

There was limited evidence of systems specifically designed to obtain feedback from people who used the service, particularly those who did not communicate verbally. We saw a review of one person’s personal progression plan recorded limited information and engagement from the person and staff did not record using any communication aids to support the person to be more involved.

However, one person’s relative told us they were involved in the person’s care, they said, “Yes, I was involved with the care plan for him, I talk with them regularly and meet every 6 months.”
 

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

Systems and processes were in place to ensure staff would be able to support people to access additional support should it be required. We did not identify any concerns in relation to people being able to access external services.
 

Staff and leaders did not always act and listen to all information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experiences and outcomes.

Accident and incident records were not always completed or subject to effective management review, limiting opportunities to identify learning and improve outcomes for people. Care plans were not always reflective of people's needs and did not consistently provide clear guidance for staff on how to support known risks.

However, the provider had systems in place to share information with people's relatives and keep them informed about their respite stays. One person’s relative said, “The home will call me if there are any issues, changes. I think it’s effective. As well as calling me there is a communication book that is filled out by the home and myself when anything happens or changes.”
 

People were supported to plan for important life changes and make informed decisions about their future.

Staff told us the service focused on supporting positive outcomes and enriching people's lives. As this was a respite service, it was not supporting people with end-of-life care at the time of our assessment.