Cosford House

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 received person-centred care from staff who knew them well and understood what was important in their lives. Relatives consistently described strong, trusting relationships and individualised support that had made a tangible difference to people’s wellbeing. A relative said, “[Name]’s come on in leaps and bounds. It’s good there, it’s really good, and they really have looked after him. He’s a different person now.” Staff and managers worked with people over many years, adapting support around changing needs, for example creating tailored routines so people could remain as independent and settled as possible. Written care plans were being updated and did not always fully reflect the detailed, person-centred practice staff described and we observed. However, this work was clearly identified on the service improvement plan and was being addressed.

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 experienced consistent, coordinated care supported by long‑standing staff and strong relationships with health and social care professionals. The service worked closely with community services, and staff advocated for people during hospital attendances and specialist appointments so that their needs and rights were understood. Relatives told us care had been sustained and adapted over many years. One relative explained how their loved one had lived at the home for a number of years and had well‑coordinated Parkinson’s and mental health support.

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

People and relatives received regular verbal updates and told us managers and staff kept them well informed about changes in health, appointments and day‑to‑day matters, including when relatives lived some distance away. The service shared information through newsletters, noticeboards and people’s meetings about activities, community events and service changes, such as digital systems and safety arrangements.

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 and relatives felt listened to and involved in everyday decisions and reviews. There were many examples of the service changing support in response to what people said, such as altering bathing facilities, adjusting staffing around individuals and involving people in recruitment interviews. One relative said, “I am always kept up to date on any needs he may require and have my views taken into account.” However, formal feedback mechanisms, including questionnaires and surveys, were used inconsistently. Relatives said they were more often asked for views informally rather than through structured processes. Although leaders had begun to expand feedback methods, including mixed formats, this work was recent and not yet embedded in routine practices.

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

People with different needs and abilities were supported to access health care, activities and community resources on an equitable basis. Staff arranged and accompanied people to a wide range of health appointments, including Parkinson’s clinics, oncologist reviews, foot care, x‑rays and mental health services, and relatives told us these were well managed and communicated. Staff worked with external professionals to make sure the environment and equipment were adapted to promote equitable access. For example, they requested the housing provider developed bespoke wheelchair‑accessible accommodation, and referred people to occupational therapists so they could obtain handrails and call systems. This enabled people with physical health needs to move around and participate in shared spaces alongside others.

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.

People from different backgrounds and with very different histories and diagnoses experienced consistently positive relationships with staff and described feeling safe, settled and “at home”, often after long histories of mental health problems or trauma.

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 supported to think about and record their preferences for the future, including end‑of‑life wishes, and staff worked with external professionals to maintain comfort and dignity as needs changed. Several people had funeral plans that set out preferred music, clothing and arrangements, and for some this was clearly documented in their care records. Relatives described managers discussing significant decisions such as power of attorney and long‑term planning with them and their family members. People and relatives spoke about feeling reassured that staff had done this work. Staff and managers recognised that Cosford House was people’s long‑term home and worked with the housing provider to made changes to the environment so people could remain there safely as they aged or their health deteriorated.