Arundel House - Frinton-on-Sea

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 service met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has improved to 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.

At the previous inspection in March 2023 there was a lack of evidence that care provided met people's needs and reflected their preferences. This was a breach of regulation 9 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. At this inspection provider had made improvements and the service was no longer in breach of regulation 9.

Care plans were being transferred onto a digital care planning system. People’s support and their individual needs, wishes and preferences formed the basis of their support plans. People and those close to them were involved as much as possible in planning and making shared decisions about their support and treatment, so they could be sure it was centred around them and their needs.

People’s care plans were up to date and fully reflected their physical, mental, emotional and social care needs and preferences. A Relative told us, “There were very regular reviews and supervisions regarding [person]. The (registered) manager and deputies were daily, or however many times needed a day, updating [person’s] care needs. Their standards of care are exemplary.”

People understood their conditions, support and treatment options including anyassociated risks and benefits and any advice provided.Staff recognised people’s support needs and knew how to respond to any changes in their physical or emotional needs.

People’s support met their assessed needs from services that were co-ordinated and responsive. The provider considered the needs and preferences of different people, including those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act and those at most risk of a poorer experience of care.

The registered manager demonstrated a clear understanding of the diverse health and care needs of people and helped to ensure each person’s care was joined-up, flexible and supported choices and continuity.

People were given access to accurate and up to date information provided in a way they could understand and met their communication needs. The registered manager said information could be made available in whatever format people required.

People knew how to access their health and support records and were supported to decide which personal information could be shared with other people, including their family, care staff, or external agencies.

The staff and registered manager involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. We saw how people were supported to give feedback about their experiences of care and support and they clearly told us how they would raise any concerns or issues in a range of different ways.

People were confident to speak up and that if they made a complaint, they would be taken seriously and treated compassionately.A relative told us, “I have not had cause to raise a complaint, but would feel confident in doing so, should it ever prove necessary.”

People were supported to access care, treatment and support when they need to and in a way that worked for them. People were supported to overcome barriers to ensure equal access.

Management and staff were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage different groups of people in accessing care, treatment and support, whether this is from wider society, within organisational processes and culture or from individuals. For example, there was an instance where the registered manager raised a safeguarding alert because an external body was not acting in the best interests of a person.

People’s support promotes equality, removes barriers or delays and protects their rights. People felt empowered to share their views and understand their rights, including their rights to equality and their human rights.

People were supported to make informed choices about their support and to plan their future care while they still had the capacity to do so. People’s decisions and what mattered to them were detailed and personalised. When people wanted to express their wishes about cardiopulmonary resuscitation, they were supported to do so and were able to change their mind if they wished. Some people declined to make plans for end of life care, their choices were respected.

A staff member told us about how the staff team had supported a person to pass with respect and dignity and according to their wishes. The person was cared for by the team to make their last days comfortable with the assistance of external professionals and the person’s family.