78 Stubbington Lane

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 changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Improvements had been made following our previous inspection. The service 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.

Care plans were person centred to ensure care was provided in accordance with people’s individual needs and preferences. For example, people could choose when they woke up, what time they went to bed and what they wanted to wear and what to eat.

People had not always been offered meaningful activities. We saw evidence the provider was aware of this and had already taken action by encouraging the staff team to support people to undertake a variety of activities of the person’s choosing and to devise an activity planner with people.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

A relative told us, “They are proactive at seeking advice, if there is a medical problem, now the new manager is there.”

Staff had completed training and understood the Equality Act.The manager told us, “Some of the people in the home are supported by professional’s who have known them for a long time.” This helped to remove some of the barriers to care.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People’s communication needs and preferences were clearly recorded in care plans.

People had communication aids in place, including electronic tablets. We observed 1 person wearing their communication aid during our first visit. We noted during our second visit they weren’t wearing the aid. We observed staff prompting the person to wear it.

Numerous easy read documents were available and had been used. This meant people could make their needs and wishes known to staff.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment, and support.

They involved people in decisions about their day-to-day care and told them what had changed as a result.

People living in the home were asked for their views in a variety of formats throughout the year, these included in daily conversations, meetings with their keyworkers, and through surveys. Action plans were devised from these meetings and survey’s and were shared with people. This meant people’s views were listened to and drove improvement.

The manager told us, where needed they engaged the use of advocacy services to ensure people were heard.

The service made sure people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff understood the needs of autistic people and people with a learning disability and worked hard to ensure typical barriers faced by people were removed or mitigated against.

Each person had a hospital passport in place. This could be shared with other professionals to reduce potential barriers to care within the health and social care system. We reviewed these documents and noted areas where additional information could be added to aid other professionals supporting the person. The provider was responsive and told us they would add this information.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support, and treatment in response to this.

Staff treated people as individuals and made reasonable adjustments for anyone who needed them.

Staff understood how the Equality Act applied to their role. The manager told us, “We raise complaints and advocate on behalf of people if we see practice which falls short of what people are entitled to. Staff are always with people when they are out, or when they attend appointments to support with this.”

People 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.

Although end of life care was not required at this time, we found some people’s end of life plans contained minimal details which did not include how a person would want to be supported at the end of their life. This meant the provider had not considered people’s future and end of life planning to ensure if people’s health were to deteriorate, staff would know how people wanted to be cared for at the end of their lives. The manager told us, some people found talking about this upsetting, so they would begin liaising with their relatives.