Cantley Grange

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.

Staff involved people and made sure they 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. A person commented, “I am able to make my own choices each day.” During the assessment, there was a fault with the lift, which slightly increased the demand on staff duties. We did observe some task-focused interactions from staff and fed this back as an observation to leaders. Care records were person centred and included information about people's likes and dislikes, things of importance, relationships people wished to maintain to assist with person-centred care. Some of the care plans reviewed varied in quality and leaders told us support had been provided to senior staff members on documenting what a person-centred care and support plan looks like.

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. We saw evidence that people were supported to access relevant healthcare professionals when they required. Records documented showed staff recording concerns and any advice given from other professionals. A person told us, “I see the GP regularly. I get the support I need, when I need it.” Relatives informed us that staff take their loved-ones to appointments when required and staff up-date them of any related information about their loved-one’s health and well-being.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People were provided with information by staff in a way they understood and in a range of formats, including large font and pictorial documents. Staff told us how they adapted their communication for people for example if people had any specific communication or sensory needs. Notice boards were on display throughout the service providing people with relevant information in a variety of formats.

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. There was a complaints procedure in place, and relatives told us they knew how to raise concerns and who to approach if needed. Complaints were investigated and any outcomes were recorded appropriately. People were encouraged to make suggestions at the resident’s meetings, which were held to gather people’s views about the home, share updates from senior staff, and provide a forum for feedback and suggestions.Relatives told us they were informed about care reviews for their loved-ones and were asked for their in-put.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Care records included information around people's sensory and communication needs. A relative told us how 1 staff member had advocated for their loved-one during a meeting, which was impactful to their care. The environment was spacious and accessible, supporting people to move independently around the service. There were sufficient accessible communal areas available for people to find social interaction and a quiet space.

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’s support was personalised; staff knew individuals needs well and protected people’s rights and removed barriers where they were able to.

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. A number of people living at the service had Recommended Summary Plans for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) forms in place, or Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) forms. People’s treatment wishes were highlighted clearly within their care plans and people had been engaged in early discussions about future care or end-of-life preferences. Within the end-of-life examples we reviewed, people’s preferences for care and support were detailed and person centred.