Laurel Court

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 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.

Staff understood the meaning of person-centred care and how to put this into practice by ensuring care was provided in a way that respected people as individuals. We observed staff adapting their approach in response to people’s preferences and mood. Staff supported people to make choices about their daily routines, meals, activities, and personal environment.

A staff member told us, “Person-centred care revolves around the person and what their wishes are. It’s not one size fits all”.

People’s care records reflected the principles and values of right support, right care, right culture. Each person had a profile that described who they were and included information about what was important to them, such as family relationships, what staff needed to know to support them well

The registered manager told us people had named keyworkers who supported them with their needs and worked with them to create and review their care plans.

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.

Staff worked effectively with a range of health and social care professionals to ensure people received coordinated care and continuity of support.

We saw evidence people were supported by health professionals both on and off site, and records showed staff made timely referrals to other services when required. These included GPs, dentists, and community teams, among others.

People received care and support from services that understood the diverse health and social care needs of their local communities.

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

Staff were aware of their responsibility to meet people’s communication needs and make information accessible, which included providing documents in easy read format and adapting their communication style for each person. This ensured people understood and could use the information to the best of their ability.

Some people were able to communicate with staff by using a picture board to express their emotions.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Systems were in place to enable people and their relatives to share feedback and raise concerns. People could speak with the registered manager and staff, and they felt listened to and involved in making decisions about their care and support.

Relatives told us they felt comfortable contacting the registered manager or admin team to discuss their loved one's support, raise complaints or give feedback.

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

People had regular access to health and social care professionals.

People had opportunities to engage in activities that reflected interests, both on and off site, and were supported to access community facilities and activities, such as local shops, museums, and bowling.

The service operated an open visiting policy, which enabled families and friends to remain involved in people’s lives, if they wished. People were also able to access the community independently with their relatives.

People had access to various arts and craft materials, board games and puzzles, which they regularly engaged with and staff actively supported people to attend social activities in the wider community.

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 were supported by management and staff to be included and have the same opportunity as others and access services that could support their goals and aspirations.

Staff told us some people travelled independently to college, day centres, or into town for shopping. Staff understood their responsibility to support people to achieve positive outcomes that were tailored to their individual care and support needs and wishes and promoted a positive approach to risk-taking, enabling people to live their lives as fully and independently as possible.

One person told us they had worked for a few years in a local restaurant and a supermarket, which positively impacted on their well-being.

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.

People did not require any support with end-of-life care at the time of our assessment. People were supported to be involved in discussions and decisions about their future, and these were clearly documented in their care plans.