Plean Dene

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.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People were supported to access the community and participate in activities they enjoyed. Community activities reflected people's interests and preferences. However, opportunities for meaningful engagement within the home were more limited and were not always consistent with people's identified interests and preferences.

The provider worked with people and relevant health and social care professionals to help ensure continuity of care and support. Staff knew people well and understood their individual needs and routines. People were supported to access healthcare services, appointments and community activities, and relatives told us the service worked effectively with other professionals when required. There was evidence of multidisciplinary involvement in people's care and staff shared information with relevant agencies to support people's wellbeing and positive outcomes.

The provider did not always ensure information was available in formats that met people's individual communication needs. Although the service used Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS), there was limited evidence that other identified communication methods, such as Makaton, were consistently used where care plans indicated these were preferred. Some information had been adapted into PECS format; however, this often resulted in lengthy and complex picture sequences which may have been difficult for people to understand. Information had not always been presented in the simplest and most accessible way to support people's understanding and involvement in their care.

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.

Some people were involved in the recruitment of staff and were part of the interview panel and asked candidate’s questions. This meant they were able to choose who to employ.

Meetings were held monthly and people’s views were sought, however, some people could not contribute due to their communication needs. The outcome of any actions from the previous meeting was not discussed, meaning people were not aware if their views had been considered.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. We saw evidence people were supported to attend health appointments and treatment when required, for example, the dentist.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listened 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.

Staff had received equality and diversity training; however, this had not always given them the knowledge they required to ensure people were supported fairly as detailed throughout the report.

Some people were supported to overcome barriers to gaining employment and staff continued to encourage them to further progress their skills, this was not consistent as other people were not given the opportunity to lead fulfilled lives due to their disability and communication skills and the service had not explored ways to address 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.

Although end of life care was not required at this time, we found people’s end of life plans contained details which included how a person would want to be supported at the end of their life. This meant the provider had considered people’s future and end of life planning to ensure if people’s health were to deteriorate, staff would know how people wanted to be cared for at the end of their lives.