Peter House

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 inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.
 

This service scored 50 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and support choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. People’s care plans were not sufficiently detailed to demonstrate how person-centred care was being delivered in line with people’s personalised preferences and needs. People’s potential, interests and skills were not adequately considered.

The provider was not able to demonstrate how people were being motivated to lead a full and active life. People were not always supported to explore a wide range of person-centred activities. During the inspection we reviewed people’s daily care records and found limited evidence of meaningful activities and engagement.

We received mixed feedback from people’s relatives about how much people were supported to go out and how well the provider promoted people’s choice and engagement in activities.
 

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

Staff did not always demonstrate a clear and consistent approach to supporting people’s specific emotional support needs and communication. Incidents where people were experiencing distress were not always responded to in a consistent and proactive way.

Where people’s needs had changed, the provider was not always able to demonstrate how they worked with other professionals in a joined-up way to promote good outcomes for people.
 

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People did not always have communication care plans in place. This meant staff did not have guidance about how to provide information appropriately and in line with people’s personalised communication needs and preferences. People’s care plans did not always document whether people used different forms of communication or visual aids to support their decision-making.

The provider did not always make it easy for people or those important to them to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care and support. People and those important to them were not always consulted or involved in decision-making.

The provider had a policy in place for responding to concerns and complaints. However, the provider’s complaints recording process lacked detail and did not always provide a clear summary of what exactly had happened or what the outcome was. This meant it was not always clear whether appropriate action had been taken.

People’s relatives told us they knew how to raise concerns and we received positive feedback about the responsiveness of the new manager when concerns were raised.

The provider had not always ensured appropriate information was in place to enable people to access services easily. There was a lack of guidance for staff about how to mitigate barriers linked to people’s communication and emotional support needs. This meant staff did not always have information about how to make reasonable adjustments and plan effectively when supporting people to access services and community settings.

The provider was not able to demonstrate how they promoted equality in people’s care or empowered them to lead a full life. People were not always regularly supported to plan goals or explore meaningful activities. The provider was not able to evidence how they had reviewed people’s daily care to understand and improve people’s quality of life.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future. People’s care plans did not evidence how they were actively involved in planning for or discussing their future care needs.