HF Trust Bedfordshire

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.

People had monthly meetings with a key worker so they could give feedback about their care. Relatives did not always feel confident that any concerns would be listened to and taken seriously.

This service scored 69 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. Feedback from relatives indicated that they were happy with the care their family members received. A relative said, “I do go to reviews for my [family member] every year where we can give our opinions about [family members] care. Overall, I’m happy with the care,”However, relatives told us that they did not feel listened to and that changes were not always made when they raised concerns. There was a complaints procedure in place and people had guidance on who to contact if they wanted to raise concerns. However, relatives told us that when they made a complaint it was not always dealt with, and they did not feel listened to. One relative told us, “I don’t like to complain as I feel the manager can’t be bothered with it.” Another relative commented, “I do raise concerns but sometimes I’m a bit reluctant to say anything if it's about something small as I feel I get on their nerves.” A third relative told us, “I have raised concerns but don’t feel it is being taken seriously.”

We contacted the registered manager about the feedback, who swiftly completed an investigation and produced an action plan for improvement. Actions included the introduction of a compliments and complaints link which would be shared with all family members, so they could highlight to senior leaders if their concerns were not being addressed by the local management team.

Engaging with people and finding out their views took place in several different ways. Records confirmed there were annual reviews of people's care where they and relatives were asked to have their say about the quality of their care. People had monthly 1-1 meetings with their principal care staff member (key worker) where they could discuss their care, things that were going well and if anything needed to be changed. People and relatives were usually sent out satisfaction surveys annually. However, this had not taken place in 2024. The head of care and support told us this was because the provider had been working on a process called ‘The Big Conversation’. This is a system that supports people and organisations to have quality and insightful conversations with people using the service, staff and other groups to co-produce action plans for change. This would be used in the future to gain feedback from people to ensure continuous improvement.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.