Archived: 23 Pierrepoint Road

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 changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of a legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.

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.

People did not always receive person-centred care which reflected their needs and preferences. Staff had not always identified or planned for people’s current needs. Information in some care plans was not followed. When we discussed this with staff, they told us the information was no longer relevant. However, changes had not been made to update these care plans.

Staff had not assessed or planned for people’s sensory needs.

Some people did not take part in a range of meaningful activities. Activity plans were not always followed.

Staff did not support people to plan objectives or work towards these.

Staff did not always ensure people received continuity of care. Care plans were not always clear, and staff did not always follow these. Whilst staff had training to understand best practice, there were times when they had not followed professional guidance when caring for people.

Staff liaised with external professionals to help make sure people could access the services they needed.

Staff did not always give people clear or consistent information. We observed incidents when different staff members gave people conflicting information. In 1 instance, 3 different staff gave a person conflicting information about whether they were going out for a walk or not. Staff did not explain what was happening when the walk was postponed and the person expressed confusion. In another incident, staff were unclear about who would support a person with a care intervention. Again, the person received mixed messages and was told to sit down and then told to move somewhere else twice before staff supported them.

However, some staff, including the acting manager, communicated clearly with people and used a combination of visual clues, simple language and sign language to help people understand information.

Relatives told us they received a range of information about the service and their loved ones. Their comments included, “They always let me know about things and keep me updated”, “When they give information, they don't just do short calls, they take the time to explain” and “Staff are brilliant. They phone me up about anything.”

The provider involved people and their relatives in reviews of their care. There was a suitable complaints procedure. Relatives told us they knew how to make a complaint. They explained they could speak with staff or managers about any concerns and felt these were responded to well. The provider asked people using the service, relatives and other stakeholders to contribute their views through regular surveys about their experiences.

Staff supported people to access a range of different services. For example, within the local community and accessing healthcare services.

People had equity in experience and outcomes. Staff undertook training about equality and human rights. People’s care plans included information about their individual needs and lifestyle choices. Relatives told us people’s human rights were respected. The provider had procedures regarding diversity and inclusion.

The provider had not always supported people to plan objectives and goals for the future. People’s decisions and what mattered to them were not always delivered through personalised care plans or regular reviews of planned care.

Staff had supported people and their families to consider their wishes and needs for care at the end of their lives and in death. They recorded people’s choices and this information was available for staff to follow if needed. A relative explained how staff had supported people following the death of others who they lived with. They told us this had been managed well and people had information, comfort and support to deal with their experience of loss. They said, “[Staff] did not push the feelings away. They talked to [person] and arranged for someone to come in and give support.”