7 Eworth Close

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 79 (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 they were happy with the care they received. People’s bedrooms were personalised and were decorated in line with their preferences. One person spoke positively about their room and the things they liked about it. Care was person-led. This meant people were in control of their lives and staff supported them. One relative commented, “[The staff are] professional, caring, welcoming, person centred… everything my [family member] needs.”

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 benefited from a small, long standing staff team. The service had not needed support from agency care staff for 13 years, which meant people received continuity of care. We observed that staff had a good understanding of people’s individual needs. Everyone we spoke with told us they liked the staff. People were supported to access the community regularly in line with their preferences.

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

People had detailed information in their care plans about their communication needs and preferences. We saw some people had communication aids such as hearing aids to help them communicate effectively and we saw staff supporting a person with these during our site visit. One person at the service was not able to verbally communicate. The manager told us they had explored a range of other forms of communication with this person, such as sign language. These were not successful; however staff knew the person well and communicated with them effectively.

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.

Records demonstrated people’s feedback was sought and that things changed as a result. For example, one person’s care plan stated, “I want to eat in my room”, and we saw this was facilitated. The person’s care plan also said, “I want to write to my [family member]”, staff told us this happened regularly.

We saw people were supported to make complaints if they wanted to. Relatives told us they had no need to complain and told us they were regularly asked for feedback. Comments from relatives included, “We always feel listened to” and “The home is very good for asking for feedback and responding to it.”

The provider was exceptional at ensuring people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Some people found it difficult accessing healthcare. The provider worked exceptionally well with people to support people to access these appointments. For example, one relative told us their family member was due for a medical procedure. They commented, “[Person] needed a [medical test] and was frightened, so they called me to discuss this with me, and we came up with a plan, which was successful... The staff really look after [them].” Another relative said, “[My family member] had a recent need for [medical procedure], staff supported [them] throughout. [Person] is very anxious of hospitals, but due to staff support, [they] had the [procedure] and recovery back home was perfect.”

Another person, who was frightened of hospitals, had recently required a visit to hospital. Staff told us “[The manager] really steps up to support”. This person was able to successfully attend the hospital to get the required medical treatment.

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.

Leaders were alert to inequalities some people face and took steps to address this. For example, people were supported to have personal relationships and staff facilitated these visits. Staff had completed training in equality, diversity and inclusion. People’s care plan structure showed good consideration of people’s protected characteristics. For example, people’s sexual orientation, religion and cultural needs were recorded. The service followed clear best practice guidelines relating to equality, diversity and inclusion, such as involving people in their care and making reasonable adjustments where required.

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 had information in their care plans about their future goals and wishes. For example, one person’s care plan said they wanted a big house and wanted to go to Spain. People were also supported to set smaller goals which we saw were being achieved.