Yarborough House RCH

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 Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained 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.

The management team did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care as they did not ensure care plans were reflective of people’s needs and personal preferences. For example, one person had communication difficulties, and their care plan did not guide staff on their preferred routines or contain information about their favourite food and drinks. This meant they could not always make their needs or preferences known and staff could not consistently provide care in line with the person’s preferences.

The management team 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 were supported by a consistent staff team which helped to promote continuity of care. Most staff had worked at the service for a long time as they liked their roles and supporting people. A staff member said, “I love the place, the people, the staff and the managers are both quite supportive.”

Where people needed to access other services, the management team worked with people, their relatives, other providers and relevant professionals to support a smooth transfer of care.

The provider did not always supply appropriate information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Care plans recorded how people communicated, though how information was presented to people was not always considered. For example, the provider asked people to complete questionnaires about the service, though questions were long and only came in one format. This meant that where people had cognitive or communication difficulties, they would struggle to understand the information given to them or to provide meaningful responses.

The management sought feedback about the service from people and staff through meetings and questionnaires. However, some people were unable to attend meetings to provide feedback due to being cared for in bed. This meant their views had not been sought and any changes to the service had not considered their ideas or preferences.

People’s relatives told us they had not needed to complain but felt confident to do so as the management team were approachable. A relative said, “I don’t need to complain I pop my head around the door and have a chat with the managers and problem sorted.”

The management team made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed, when they needed it. Staff understood arrangements for requesting support for people out of hours and made appropriate referrals to ensure people got the help they needed.

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. The management team told us a person had difficulty accessing a dentist. To help address this, they arranged for a dentist to visit the person at the service. Where external services had long waiting times, the management team worked to maintain positive working relationships and followed up referrals at regular intervals.

People and their relatives were given opportunities to discuss how and where they would like their end-of-life care to be provided. Though care plans were not always detailed and did not always show the opportunities people had been given to discuss their preferences.

People were supported to have pain-free, dignified deaths. A relative told us their loved one died with dignity at the service. Staff knew people well and worked closely with healthcare professionals when people’s needs changed at the end of their lives to ensure people remained pain-free and comfortable. Staff tried to stay with people who were at the end of their lives to offer comfort and companionship, though they told us this was not always possible due to staffing levels.