YourLife (Kenilworth)

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.

People told us care plans were developed around their personal routines, preferences, likes and dislikes. They told us staff listened to what they had to say which ensured the care they received was reflective of their individual needs. One person told us, “I said exactly how I wanted it (care) done. It was the way I did it."

People told us care plans were adapted in response to changes in their needs. One person explained, “I had to have them (staff) in the evenings because I couldn’t get into bed but that got better and I don’t have that now." A relative told us, “[Registered manager] is very responsive, and we have tweaked it (the care plan) quite a bit."

Care plans were reviewed every 6 months, or sooner if there were changes in people’s health or medical conditions. This meant staff had up to date and accurate information which kept people at the centre of the care they received.

New staff received an induction when they started working at the service which included shadowing more experienced staff. This gave staff the opportunity to meet people and develop an understanding of how people preferred their care to be provided.

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.

People could purchase a personal care service from YourLife (Kenilworth) or arrange personal care from an external provider if preferred. Sometimes people chose to have a care package which was split between YourLife (Kenilworth) and another provider. The registered manager explained how they liaised with the other provider to ensure safety and consistency in care delivery.

People received support from a small team of staff which provided continuity in their care. One person told us, “Now I only have 1 particular lady (staff member), they are absolutely splendid, they listen to what I want.”

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

The provider had an Accessible Information Policy based on the Accessible Information Standards. People were assessed to identify any specific communication needs due to hearing and sight impairments or physical, mental or cultural needs. Any adjustments required to support people with their preferred method of communication were documented in their care plans.

Important information such as the service user guide and the complaints process could be provided in alternative formats such as Braille, large print, on audiotape, easy to read or in a person’s language of choice.

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.

People said they were happy with the care and support they received but would happily raise any concerns if they needed to. One person told us, “I think they know I am happy and I would complain if I didn’t like it." Another person said they would raise any concerns directly with the registered manager and commented, “I wouldn’t hesitate to tell him.” A relative told us, “It is just like open communication so if I have any concerns, whenever I am here, we just touch base." Staff told us they would support people to raise any concerns or complaints if they needed to.

Duty managers met with people regularly to review and evaluate their care package to ensure their views were known and their care continued to be responsive to their wishes and preferences. People were asked to give their feedback about the service through reviews, compliments and complaints. The process for raising concerns or making complaints was set out in detail in the service user guide. This included guidance on the external agencies people could escalate complaints to, if they were unhappy with how their concerns had been responded to.

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

The registered manager considered some of the difficulties people could experience in accessing the support they needed. Where possible they took action to address this and commented, “It is ensuring as many doors as possible are opened for people." For example, they liaised with the vaccination team so people could have their seasonal vaccinations without leaving Wilton Court.

Staff understood which services to call if people needed medical support or guidance. Members of the management team were available 24 hours a day to provide guidance and support in an emergency.

The development had been built to ensure the main entrance, corridors and doorways were accessible for people with mobility needs.

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.

Staff received training on equality and diversity to ensure they understood their responsibility to support people without discrimination and protect their characteristics under the Equality Act. The registered manager told us they encouraged a culture where staff felt confident to challenge inequalities in the care people received. They explained, “It is about encouraging staff to speak up and take action. Every single homeowner is treated with respect and dignity, but it is about raising concerns if we think people aren’t receiving this.”

Reviews of care plans were outcome based to ensure they continued to reflect people’s needs and expectations.

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 were invited to discuss how they wanted to be supported when their health deteriorated. This included where they wanted to be cared for, what level of treatment they were happy with and what they would like to happen in an emergency. Where people had a ‘ReSPECT’ form detailing their personalised recommendations for clinical care and treatment if they were unable to make or express choices, this was recorded. Care plans contained information about people's significant relationships and who they wanted to be contacted if they were unwell or in the event of an emergency.