New Partnerships Lynray and Peach Cottage

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 57 (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 consistently received person centered care which met their needs.

Recent concerns had highlighted that staff were not always aware of people’s needs and practice was inconsistent. People had care plans but there were gaps in the information which meant that the staff were not provided with clear guidance as to the actions that they should take. One person’s care plan referred to them having one member of staff, but they were supported by two staff throughout the waking day.

Relatives told us that staff did not always work in a consistent way, and this meant that they were constantly having to remind staff and check what was happening with their family member to ensure that their needs were met. One spoke about the care plan and told us, “I don't really feel it holds much weight, because nobody really seems to read it, but yes, I was involved.”

Staff supported people to access the community and receive the support they needed from different services. We saw that appropriate referrals had been made to healthcare partners and people were supported to participate in daily activities. However, relatives expressed concerns about the quality of some of the activities and the focus on television, videos and walks to the local park.

People’s care plans set out how best to communicate with people.

The provider told us that they could provide information in formats which were tailored to individual needs. We saw some evidence of questionnaires being provided in an accessible format but noticeboards within the services were focused on staff information, some of which was out of date.

The provider had systems to listen to people and respond to any concerns they had, but they did not demonstrate that these always worked effectively.

People and relatives told us that they knew how to make a complaint. Relatives expressed concerns about the complaints process and told us that they had raised issues repeatedly but did not always see evidence of improvement. We saw that some investigations had been undertaken but the records of complaints did not always align with the information provided by relatives. For example, we saw that there had been an incident when a person had been taken out when a health professional had attended the service for an appointment. This was the subject of correspondence but not a complaint investigation, which meant it was not clear what learning had occurred.

Feedback systems were not well developed; we saw that only a small number of people had used the providers electronic system. An action plan was not available, and the feedback did not align with the significant amount or content of the feedback we received.

The provider had clear values about promoting equality and staff had undertaken the Oliver Mc Gowan training however they were not able to fully demonstrate how they ensured that people received a consistently good service.

Relatives told us that inexperienced staff and a lack of organisation and oversight impacted on the outcomes for their family member.

People were supported to access services and healthcare by staff where this was needed. Staff worked with people to help them have ordinary experiences such as going to cafes and supporting them to maintain relationships which mattered to them.

There were some systems in place to ascertain people’s views and hear peoples voice such as through quality questionnaires and key workers however these systems were not well developed.

People and their relatives were not always 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 and or an emergency. This section of care plans had not been completed.